Source: Claire Foran and Tal Kopan, CNN
Published Sunday, September 23, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/trump-administration-immigration-public-benefits/index.html
This article covers a proposed rule that would force potential immigrants to prove their financial independence before being allowed residence in the United States. This means the blocking of visa or green card applications of those who are eligible for benefits available to the American public. It would also mean increased difficulty of legal status change, like from visa-holder to citizen. Applications for visas may be accepted, but ineligible for permanent citizenship. The Trump administration argues that the rule would lessen the burden on American taxpayers, while critics are sure that the new rule, if passed, would hurt the country in the long run.
The policy of the Trump administration has always been to ensure that immigrants will not become a burden to America; however, there is strong argument that the rule discriminates families and
This article covers a proposed rule that would force potential immigrants to prove their financial independence before being allowed residence in the United States. This means the blocking of visa or green card applications of those who are eligible for benefits available to the American public. It would also mean increased difficulty of legal status change, like from visa-holder to citizen. Applications for visas may be accepted, but ineligible for permanent citizenship. The Trump administration argues that the rule would lessen the burden on American taxpayers, while critics are sure that the new rule, if passed, would hurt the country in the long run.
The policy of the Trump administration has always been to ensure that immigrants will not become a burden to America; however, there is strong argument that the rule discriminates families and
The opinion of several public figures, such as Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, has been published. She refers to the rule as an “attack on working class families” that prevents them from reaching the American Dream many of them are working towards, “before [they] even come here." Public opinion has not yet been polled, as the proposal was just released this week.
Personally, I believe that the rule is extremely discriminatory and is extremely ineffective, as immigrants are and always have been essential to the structure of our country's workforce. Trying to build a country from only the wealthiest residents and selectively building a society will never hold as a permanent social situation.
3 comments:
Restrictive immigration policies such as these could potentially be damaging to the United States economy, which depends significantly on low-wage and undocumented immigrants for cheap labor. A more optimistic policy would be to, instead of simply denying entry to those who might need federal benefits and deporting undocumented workers, use better policy and enforcement for companies to provide livable wages to their workers. Many workers live under intolerable conditions and need federal aid in the first place because companies know they are willing to take their abominable pay over none at all. Even if helping these incoming immigrants is unpractical or more damaging to the economy, the image of freeloaders not working and simply taking government pay is generally false, and should not be used as the main argument to defend the restrictions.
I think the logic behind this proposal is that benefits should only be given to citizens born in the United States and that immigrants shouldn't be coming to the US for the purpose of obtaining welfare rather than intending to work -- there are people out there who have an easier time immigrating to the US because of a family connection with a US citizen. It's a characteristically Republican proposal in its "American-first" stance. I think it makes logical sense, but the economics behind the approach may be more complex than it seems. As Max previously stated, America does rely on immigrant workers for certain low-wage jobs, but then at the same time, if a larger percentage of these workers are undocumented immigrants, blocking of visas and green cards may not make much of an impact in regards to the low-income workforce.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is already pretty wary when it comes to issuing tourist visas for visiting family members -- for someone to obtain a tourist visa, they need to have a good reason to go back to their country of origin. If it seems that their living conditions will significantly improve and that they have motivation to stay in the United States, then USCIS may choose to deny the visa (it's very easy for someone on tourist visa to overstay and then to have a US citizen family sponsor them for a green card). This proposal will certainly strengthen existing precautions against prospective immigrants, but as to whether or not it'd be good for the economy as a whole, that's a bit harder to tell.
This policy will only add more bureaucracy and make the immigration system even more complicated. There will need to be criteria for which immigrants are "self-sufficient," and those criteria will need to encompass a variety of factors such as profession, education, family size etc. Also, this rule, if implemented, may end up making legal immigration with people from poorer countries nearly impossible, as many prospective immigrants earn far less in their home countries than what is considered a "living wage" in America. I think this proposal is a bad idea.
Post a Comment