Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

The president is considering deporting immigrants who are on welfare.  Did you ever in your wildest dreams imagine you would be reading such a sentence?

The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.

Immigration advocates reacted with outrage to the draft documents, warning that if enacted the executive orders could harm the U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants whose parents could be stripped of public assistance.

"He's loaded his anti-immigrant Uzi and is firing off another round," said Angela Maria Kelley, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Donald Trump has an anti-immigrant Uzi?  Do you suppose he keeps it next to his anti-ISIS AR-15 and his anti-Obamacare colonoscopy bayonet?

Long-standing U.S. law already makes it difficult for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, which limits how many immigrants receive such taxpayer-funded help. In 1996, President Bill Clinton ... severely restricted all immigrant access to social assistance; those who are in the country illegally are barred from almost any federal program designed for the poor. 

... [U]nder existing federal law, new permanent residents, or green-card holders, are unable to qualify for welfare and other public benefits during their first five years of residency. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally also are unable to obtain federal welfare benefits.

Okay, I stopped understanding here.  First the WaPo says that Trump is planning to deport immigrants on welfare.  Then the WaPo says immigrants, by law, are not on welfare.  If that's the case, why is the WaPo concerned?  Whom does Angela Kelly think Trump is firing his anti-immigrant Uzi at?

The WaPo is generating interference from its two lines of propaganda – that immigrants aren't on welfare and that Trump is heartless for considering deporting those who are.  Which one is it?

For more than 100 years, the country has had a provision that allows federal officials to bar immigrants who, based on a specific formula, seem likely to need public assistance after arrival.

So if existing law permits the government to exclude parasites, and Donald Trump enforces existing law, how is that a problem?

Liberals are the ones to invent laws that suit them and to yell at the top of their lungs when conservatives enforce existing laws that don't.  How much more transparent can the propaganda get?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

The president is considering deporting immigrants who are on welfare.  Did you ever in your wildest dreams imagine you would be reading such a sentence?

The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.

Immigration advocates reacted with outrage to the draft documents, warning that if enacted the executive orders could harm the U.S. citizen children of undocumented immigrants whose parents could be stripped of public assistance.

"He's loaded his anti-immigrant Uzi and is firing off another round," said Angela Maria Kelley, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Donald Trump has an anti-immigrant Uzi?  Do you suppose he keeps it next to his anti-ISIS AR-15 and his anti-Obamacare colonoscopy bayonet?

Long-standing U.S. law already makes it difficult for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, which limits how many immigrants receive such taxpayer-funded help. In 1996, President Bill Clinton ... severely restricted all immigrant access to social assistance; those who are in the country illegally are barred from almost any federal program designed for the poor. 

... [U]nder existing federal law, new permanent residents, or green-card holders, are unable to qualify for welfare and other public benefits during their first five years of residency. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally also are unable to obtain federal welfare benefits.

Okay, I stopped understanding here.  First the WaPo says that Trump is planning to deport immigrants on welfare.  Then the WaPo says immigrants, by law, are not on welfare.  If that's the case, why is the WaPo concerned?  Whom does Angela Kelly think Trump is firing his anti-immigrant Uzi at?

The WaPo is generating interference from its two lines of propaganda – that immigrants aren't on welfare and that Trump is heartless for considering deporting those who are.  Which one is it?

For more than 100 years, the country has had a provision that allows federal officials to bar immigrants who, based on a specific formula, seem likely to need public assistance after arrival.

So if existing law permits the government to exclude parasites, and Donald Trump enforces existing law, how is that a problem?

Liberals are the ones to invent laws that suit them and to yell at the top of their lungs when conservatives enforce existing laws that don't.  How much more transparent can the propaganda get?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.

RECENT VIDEOS