This could get dicey considering how the Left argues, constantly, that immigrants don’t use public, taxpayer-funded resources. We should probably do a better job explaining all the various differences regarding eligibility, especially when we start talking about “relatives” getting benefits, too.
The Balamer people are getting mad at the people from Warshington, hon.
My thoughts, too. So far as I can tell, US citizenship is a prime requirement for welfare, but there’s a widespread belief that huge numbers of non-citizens are receiving welfare.
So, as you point out, the Dems better parse this one carefully so as not to give any credence to this canard.
I don’t care. If resources are illegally being denied to members of society, that needs to be challenged.
Then you need to define “members of society”, because that phrase is not synonymous with “citizenship”.
The change allows consular officers to consider whether green card applicants or their relatives ever benefited from programs offering services like free vaccinations or school lunches.
This is the sentence in the article which concerns me.
“Green card applicants” imply no legal status yet, and good lord, don’t even get me started on the relatives of someone with no legal status receiving free taxpayer-funded services.
Correct. That’s why I didn’t say “citizens”…weird, huh.
Go ahead. Rant away. They’re entitled to receive vaccines…a public health benefit that protects YOU as well as them. And their children are entitled to attend public schools and eat provided meals. That’s the law.
Except anchor babies, who are US citizens, get benefits, which help the entire family. That’s a public charge.
It’s not a canard. It’s a fact that anchor baby US citizens get benefits, which are used by the entire family.
“According to Politifact, pregnant women and nursing mothers could be eligible for certain benefits under the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) program, which provides food and nutrition vouchers to low-income families, if they have a child that was born in the U.S.”
That is actually a SCOTUS interpretation of the law, and may not survive a re-examination. We can only hope. If illegals could not get a free public education paid for by me and other American citizens, that would be a great big reduction in the moral hazard of our public benefit system.
There is another public charge which I hope is examined. If a foreign student is hired on the OPT visa, the employer pays lower taxes. That is, the Federal Government, and Department of State, makes it cheaper to hire a foreign college grad that it is to hire an American citizen college grad. That is in fact a benefit to the OPT visa holder (he gets a job) and to the employer (they hire for 10% less).
This is a horrible system, which has increased hugely in the last 10 years from 20,000 to 300,000 persons on this visa. If their use of the OPT visa made them ineligible for later green cards, we would see a huge reduction in application for this visa, and a commensurate increase in hires of American kids.
Non-citizen kids attending our public schools goes way, way back.
I recall a wave of Ukrainian kids in the 50s; Cuban kids in the 60s.
Does not change fact that a non-citizen cannot get a welfare check.
An anchor baby is a citizen. So he buys food for his family. So what?
I recall Hughes hiring Irish engineers in the 50s and 60s and later.
Ditto for other aerospace mfgs. Corporations benefit.
So you are good with employers getting a tax break to hire foreign workers over US citizens? That’s really amazing. The OPT visa, which I am sure you are totally unfamiliar with, has increased from 20K to 300K in 10 years. US kids graduate with STEM degrees and work at Starbucks. Foreign kids get the initial good job.
That sucks and only true idiots could support such a system.
“…So you are good with employers getting a tax break to hire foreign workers over US citizens?..”
Oh no, mon ami, I’m simply pointing out that this exploitation is nothing new.
I had an employer that employed only foreign-trained tool designers. They alleged the US did not produce them. True? Don’t know, but that was the reason they gave.
I have no idea about your specific industry, so will not make bullshit global statements. I will say that there is a huge push in many industries to deliberately exaggerate the “shortage” of “trained personnel”. It is sometimes called “shortage shouting”. Basically, the idea is to exaggerate these lacks to increase the work visas. It’s all about labor arbitrage - increase the labor pool to decrease wages.
30 years ago, training of persons was common. Many companies included training time, and sometimes you were sent to resorts to be trained. Today, no one trains. Look at GM - they closed 5 plants and fired 14,500. Why not open new plants, and transfer those workers to the new plants - they purportedly wish to move from petroleum to electric vehicles. There’s a simple reason why they are firing these highly trained and skilled workers - tiered hiring - you hire in new, you get those at the lower wage.
It’s all labor arbitrage.
This sounds like another situation where the trump regime is trying to impose a catch-22. Someone perfectly legally in the country, whose green card application is in process, can be zapped if they or a family member take advantage of any free service while the application is pending.
I wonder if getting a library card counts.
Yep, what you say began to accelerate in the mid-80s. I’ve lived it since then.
Otherwise, adios.