The Supreme Court granted enforcement on a green card related rule: the “public charge” rule, governing the admission of immigrants to the United States, which bans non-citizens from receiving a green card if the government believes that they are likely to become someone who is primarily relying upon government assistance: “public charge.”


    The left has historically vehemently opposed immigration restrictions, noting that our nation is built upon immigrants. Further, the apparent reality and necessity of identity politics drive the issues to the forefront of their political agenda.

    “Like much that is Trumpian, the new rules, and the Supreme Court order allowing them to go forward, build logically on the last few decades of the American political conversation on immigration, race, and class…The ‘public charge’ exclusion in immigration law goes back to the middle of the nineteenth century… The immediate precursor of the Trump Administration rule is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the welfare-reform law signed by Bill Clinton, in 1996… Trump’s spin on these long-standing policies and fears takes them to an entirely new level of hatred and cruelty. But, to reverse them, we will have to do much more than return to the way things were before Trumpism.”

    Masha Gessen, New Yorker


    While the right has historically been charged as the anti-immigration party, and many on the right believe the restrictions are a necessity, others recognize the reality of social mobility, and that poor immigrants do not always stay poor.

    “[Furthermore] the assumption that people who arrive poor will stay that way is ahistorical. Immigrants are self-selecting. The poorest of the poor can’t afford the trip, and the ones who do come tend to be more motivated and less risk-averse than nonimmigrants. Class-warfare liberals have been insisting in recent years that social mobility in [America] is now a ‘myth.’ I’ll believe that when people no longer want to come here.”

    Jason L. Riley, Wall Street Journa

    “The rule still allows pregnant women to come for the purpose of giving birth in U.S. hospitals for medical reasons, so long as they are doing so because of the quality of care and proximity to their home countries — and didn’t, for example, select the U.S. over another destination because doing so would win the child citizenship… Like much of our immigration policy, it depends on consular officers’ asking hard questions and judging the truthfulness of the replies… But as far as the rule goes, it’s entirely correct: If the primary purpose of someone’s visit is to give birth in the U.S. and gain citizenship for the child, that person should not be given a B visa.”

    National Review
    • Show Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    comment *

    • name *

    • email *

    • website *


    You May Also Like

    Court to Decide Childhood Arrival Issue

    Facts On Tuesday, Nov. 12th, the Supreme Court will review a Trump administration decision ...