Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Published

on

A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

Trending: WATCH: The Deplorable Choir Has A New Song Called “Vote Republican” They Will Make Your Day!

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:

“Introduction

“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

“Background

“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Kavanaugh Accuser Unravelling – Hit With Stiff Ultimatum After Ignoring Senate’s Inquiries

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by The Daily Caller:

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she finds it odd that Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of high school-era sexual assault, will not respond to inquiries from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“That’s very puzzling to me. I have said from the beginning that these are very serious allegations and she deserves to be heard. She’s now being given an opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to answer questions and I really hope that she doesn’t pass up that opportunity,” Collins said to a group of reporters in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Tuesday morning.

This comes as Ford previously said she would be willing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Collins has been on the fence on her support for Kavanaugh, and mentioned to reporters Tuesday she would like to see the “two attorneys who are representing Judge Kavanaugh and Professor Ford do the questioning for the first round and then go to the committee for questions.”

“It’s not unheard of to have counsel do questioning,” she added. “[Ford] will be represented by counsel. And I think it’s important that we hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh under oath in a public hearing.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Democrats for bringing forward a 36-year-old accusation of misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, on the Senate floor Monday.

Continue Reading

Mueller Investigation Comes To Screeching Halt After Anti-Trump Dem Exposes His Fatal Mistake

Published

on

...

* By

Bob Woodward, an investigative reporter who works for The Washington Post, has been in the business of ‘dirty little secrets’ so long that he was part of the team who cast a light on Richard Nixon during Watergate. In fact, once Fox News even called him a Watergate legend. Well, it has become quite obvious that now he has his sights set on President Trump and his administration. In fact, he makes it very clear where he stands when it comes to President Trump in his new “secret” book, ‘Fear’.

Yes, it was a secret because he told no one about it for the past 19 months he’s been writing it. He wanted to keep a ‘low profile’ while he researched what he planned to include in the book. There was a press release for ‘Fear’ that described the book as “an unprecedented look into the harrowing life inside Donald Trump’s White House and how the president makes decisions on major foreign and domestic policies”.

Woodward claims that he engaged in “hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand sources”. It is for this reason, we can tip a hat to the man’s work ethic despite the difference of opinion we have with him regarding President Trump and the administration. I am going to show you why right now.

Bob Woodward had an interview with Hugh Hewitt recently, in fact just a few days ago. In this interview what he revealed arguably gives President Trump supporters a very good reason to send a fat “IN YOUR FACE!” telegram to Democrats.

Check this out!

“So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?” Hugh Hewitt asked Woodward.

“I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard,” Woodward answered. “And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.”

“But you’ve seen no collusion?” Hewitt asked again to confirm.”

“I have not,” Woodward affirmed.”

Hewitt would once again ask Woodward about collusion at the conclusion of the interview.

“Very last question, Bob Woodward, I just want to confirm, at the end of two years of writing this book, this intensive effort, you saw no effort, you, personally, had no evidence of collusion or espionage by the president presented to you?” Hewitt asked.”

“That is correct,” Woodward said.”

Now if that isn’t satisfying to read, I don’t know what is. Not once, but twice Woodward clarified that he did not find ANY evidence of collusion during his research. This is coming from the same investigative reporter that was called at one time ‘a legend’ for his work. I mean, this is a man who is known for his extensive interviews with first witnesses, and research into documents, meeting notes, calendars, and even diaries. He is praised for how he constructs seamless narratives of events that he tells through the eyes of actual key participants.

Even the left knows this about him.

So, you can bet that him saying not once, but twice that he found zero evidence of collusion, is going be a real slap in the face for the left. Maybe if we listen very carefully we will be able to feel the tremor being caused by a nation full of ‘triggering’ liberals right this very second!

But I digress…

Despite this, there is still a lot of manipulative work he put into the book as well. For example, the petty stuff he made sure to include, was absolutely ridiculous.

Things such as:

“Fear: Trump In The White House also details President Trump’s explosive rants.”

“He is said to have called Attorney General Jeff Sessions “mentally retarded”, allegedly adding: “He’s this dumb Southerner. … He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”

I’d like to give a moment now to Trump, to clear things up on this.

There were also many schoolyard claims about White House Chief John Kelly such as the following:

“White House chief of staff John Kelly frequently lost his temper and referred to President Donald Trump as “unhinged” and an “idiot,” author Bob Woodward writes in his new book “Fear: Trump in the White House.”

We can clear that up to, since the book’s release Kelly has had something to say about this claim.

“Kelly, in a statement Tuesday, denied the claims as simply “not true.” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders also refuted the book’s claims.”

“Kelly said in his statement that “the idea I ever called the President an idiot is not true . . . . As I stated back in May and still firmly stand behind: ‘I spend more time with the President than anyone else, and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship. He always knows where I stand, and he and I both know this story is total BS.'”

“I’m committed to the President, his agenda, and our country,” Kelly said. “This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”

“Sanders said Tuesday that “This book is nothing more than fabricated stories, many by former disgruntled employees, told to make the president look bad.”

Needless to say, the book ‘Fear’ is just another ‘he said, she said’ work created with the purpose of adding fire to the left’s agenda and casting doubt upon the shoulders our President, but do you think it will have that effect at all? We want to know what you think!

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend