The Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security has released a draft proposal to prevent immigrants who are likely to be a public burden from entering or remaining in America. The reaction of pro-immigration advocates has been predictably hysterical.
The public charge doctrine in federal law goes back as far as the Immigration Act of 1882. That act barred any potential immigrant "unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge" from coming into the U.S.
Enriching Burden
Open-borders advocates have constantly told us that immigrants "enrich" America. So it's interesting to watch this same crowd now contend that we can only be enriched by allowing foreigners to come to our country and drain our public welfare programs.
"Experts warn that the plan would worsen hunger, unmet health needs, and other problems by making immigrant families — including families with children — afraid to get the help they need," wails the stridently pro-mass immigration National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
But we were told immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to be on public assistance? So how can this be such a grave problem all of a sudden?
The NILC spookily warns that White House senior advisor Stephen Miller is behind the public charge campaign, and adds that there are reports that another aide involved has personal ties to "prominent white supremacists and racists.”
The racial card is being whipped out because low-skilled Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, are more likely to be a financial burden.
A 2016 report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that:
BQ [T]he highest-cost households [to the public] are those headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico, consuming an average of $8,251 in welfare spending. Households headed by immigrants from Europe and Asia tend to be the least costly. EBQ
The study also determined that "the average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household."
Subsidized Exploitation
A particularly galling aspect of the CIS report states that 84% of immigrant households contain at least one worker, yet these households are still a drain on our welfare system.
This is why the NILC released a statement in conjunction with other pro-immigration groups bemoaning the fact that "[t]his change in rules will punish millions of low-income mothers like domestic workers who take care of our loved ones and our homes, yet often struggle to make enough to take care of their own families."
Translation: American taxpayers are expected to publicly subsidize the cheap labor to be found in maid services, housecleaning services, and similar industries.
Of course, other poorly compensated Hispanic immigrant laborers are eligible for public assistance as well, meaning the taxpayer is bearing the burden so more employers can profit by paying poverty-level wages to workers.
A 2015 CIS report states that a whopping 67% of households headed by immigrant farm workers are on public assistance of some form.
By opposing the cutting off of low-skilled Hispanic immigrants from welfare and other public assistance programs, open-borders advocates - who claim to care for these people - are actually perpetuating their exploitation at the hands of heartless employers who refuse to pay them a living wage.
Is it really racist to say you shouldn’t come here if you can't support yourself?
Do Americans really have no right to refuse to shell out for foreigners with their hard-earned dollars?
This Trump administration proposal will enrich American citizens in a way massive, unchecked immigration never can.
It will do so by sending would-be newcomers who prove a public burden back home.
