,
17 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Here’s the thing: most immigrants do “stand on their own two feet.”
Since 1996, most immigrants are already ineligible for most means-tested public benefits. They already rely on government help at rates much lower than comparable US citizens cato.org/publications/i…
Since 1996, most immigrants are already ineligible for most means-tested public benefits. They already rely on government help at rates much lower than comparable US citizens cato.org/publications/i…
Immigrants are here to work. Their labor participation rate (the share of adults who are employed) is significantly higher than among native-born US citizens, and their unemployment rate (the share of those looking for work who can’t find it) is lower bls.gov/news.release/f…
That includes immigrants coming from conditions of poverty in a home country and those being sponsored by a US citizen spouse who is working but whose income is just above the poverty line (not 250% of that line, the standard that would put them in the clear under the new rule)
Even among those who get governmental help—like refugees, who are unaffected by this change—what they receive is more than repaid in time. 20 years post-arrival, the average refugee adult has paid $21K more in taxes than all tax dollars used on her behalf news.nd.edu/news/economic-…
The reality is that, before this change, a family-sponsored immigrant’s US citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident sponsor already has to make a legally binding commitment to be financially responsible for their immigrant relative (usually a spouse or child) uscis.gov/greencard/affi…
If the administration’s concern was really protecting taxpayers, they could propose further restrictions on immigrants’ eligibility for particular public benefits.
That’s not what this new rule does.
It doesn’t change anyone’s eligibility for public benefit programs
That’s not what this new rule does.
It doesn’t change anyone’s eligibility for public benefit programs
Instead, it asks bureaucrats to predict—based not just on past use of legally-obtained public benefits but also on income level & other factors even for those who never received benefits—who might apply in the future for assistance & restrict their legal immigration on that basis
The effect is to dramatically restrict legal immigration, especially family reunification visas
Which means keeping husbands & wives apart & parents from minor children
Which means, likely, incentivizing illegal immigration, because families become desperate to be together
Which means keeping husbands & wives apart & parents from minor children
Which means, likely, incentivizing illegal immigration, because families become desperate to be together
The administration has not bothered to estimate how many people this will affect, but one credible external estimate of the preliminary rule is that as many as 200,000 spouse petitions could be denied annually boundless.com/blog/looming-i…
To be clear, this means, in literally thousands of cases, a US citizen husband will be told that he cannot live in the US with his wife. They can live apart or, presuming her country will give him a visa, perhaps they can live together there
The rule affects those already within the US, but similar changes have been applied to immigrant visa processing overseas. The US consulate in Mexico is on track to deny 6K+ applications this year on public charge grounds, compared to 7 denied in FY16 politico.com/story/2019/08/…
In Welcoming the Stranger (WelcomingTheStranger.com), @JennyYangWR & I profiled a couple we called Francisco (from Mexico) & Alison (a US citizen)
He was approved & is now a pastor; they currently get (& need) no public assistance. It's a good thing they applied a few years ago…
He was approved & is now a pastor; they currently get (& need) no public assistance. It's a good thing they applied a few years ago…
@JennyYangWR …Because Alison’s $50K salary as a teacher at the time she applied for her husband was less than 250% of the poverty guidelines for their family size (4), plus they have special needs twins (a negative factor); they could be denied today
@JennyYangWR The whole family could move to Mexico, where they could likely not access the care needed for their boys
Or Alison could essentially be a single mom of those twins in the US, with Francisco back in Mexico
Or he could try to get to the US unlawfully, which he doesn't want to do
Or Alison could essentially be a single mom of those twins in the US, with Francisco back in Mexico
Or he could try to get to the US unlawfully, which he doesn't want to do
@JennyYangWR If you were (appropriately) upset by a couple thousand families being separated at the border in 2018, a couple hundred thousand families being kept apart because of a biased suspicion that they won’t “stand on their on two feet” should trouble you now christianpost.com/voice/immigran…
@JennyYangWR We won’t see heart-wrenching images of children being torn from their mother’s arms, but the child stuck with a distant relative in rural Mexico or Kenya or India, separated from her US citizen mom by US policy, is likely still wailing, even if the stories don’t make our news
@JennyYangWR As church leaders noted in opposing this preliminary rule change, “While Christians may disagree at points on the exact role of government in caring for the poor…we are unified in our commitment to maintaining the unity of the family whenever possible" evangelicalimmigrationtable.com/national-evang…
