One of the most popular refrains of President Donald Trump’s candidacy and subsequent rallies has been to “build the wall.” Coupled with his frequent warnings about MS-13 gangs, he claimed his administration’s focus was on the “drug dealers, criminals and rapists” who were illegally entering the country.
His supporters took great umbrage at the suggestion that Trump and the GOP hated immigrants. They claim to support law-abiding immigrants who waited in line and did things the right way. Those defenders were strangely silent last week after NBC News reported on an administration draft proposal targeting legal residents or even naturalized American citizens who have used public benefits such as purchasing subsidized insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Lawmakers, especially pro-growth Republicans, should call out this idea for what it is — a craven attempt to energize a xenophobic base, bypass Congress and overturn the system for legal immigrants who have played by the rules.
The reported architect of the proposal is Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is pushing to radically redefine what it means to be a “public charge” — someone primarily dependent on the government. Those deemed likely to become a public charge are already denied entry or lawful permanent residence.
The proposal is designed to feed into bigoted and false tropes about immigrants as burdens on the country. Significant evidence abounds to the contrary, as first lady Melania Trump and her parents can attest.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has shown that immigrants pay more into Social Security and Medicare than they take from it. A 2013 CATO study reveals that native-born citizens living at or near the poverty line use public benefits, such as welfare and food stamps, at a higher rate than immigrants in similar economic circumstances. Current policies are already restrictive about legal immigrants’ use of public benefits, barring most for five years after entry.
But this isn’t even the real issue, which is about throwing red meat to those energized by Trump’s harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric. It’s about making sure certain communities are too afraid to use benefits like the Earned Income Credit or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, even if they’re entitled as taxpayers. It’s about stopping legal residents and citizens from sponsoring immigrant children, spouses or parents from joining them in this country.
How far is this administration willing to go in its efforts to purge the country of immigrants they deem undesirable? Will the next target include legal immigrants who send their children to taxpayer-funded public schools?
A goal that politicians from both parties can agree on is that America should encourage and even reward legal immigration. The administration now seeks to punish those who migrate the right way and dare to access services their taxes pay for. Like so many ideas Miller offers up, this one belongs in the shredder.
— St. Louis Post-Dispatch
