Will Budget-Slashing VP Pick Paul Ryan Say ANYTHING About Immigrant Welfare?
Print Friendly and PDF

Romney's VP pick Paul Ryan is famous for his budget slashing poposals, which include cutting Medicare for elderly Americans —a political strategy memorably described by Mickey Kaus as "suicide by wonk." Why hasn't Ryan looked at a cut that would actually be popular: doing something about the fiscal drain represented by immigrants on welfare?

The long-dormant issue of aliens on welfare inexplicably resurfaced last week: The Daily Caller discovered that immigrants, this time legal ones, are deep into our taxpayer-provided generous welfare benefits:

The federal government allows immigrants to enjoy America’s vast welfare safety net, from food stamps to housing benefits and Medicaid, and remain immune from repercussions to their immigration status. And on Monday, ranking Republican members of the Senate Finance, Agriculture, Budget, and Judiciary Committees wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanding to know why.

Immigration regulations prohibit individuals “likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” from legal admittance into the United States. But non-citizens can avail themselves of dozens of welfare programs without the federal government considering them a dependency risk.

In government-speak, an individual likely to become reliant on the government for survival is termed a “public charge.” While there is a menu of over 80 federal welfare programs in America, that status is triggered by reliance on two federal programs: Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act explains that immigrants are “inadmissible” to the United States if the U.S. Attorney General or any consular officer who interacts with them determines that he or she “is likely at any time to become a public charge.”

Despite immigration regulations that specifically state individuals may not be legally admitted if that determination is made, the real-world application of those regulations reveals a different story.

Acceptance of food stamps benefits, housing benefits, energy assistance, child care services, Medicaid and a wealth of other programs are all inadmissible in the determination of a non-citizen’s “public charge” risk,  according  to the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal Government’s Open-Door Immigration Policy On Welfare Under Fire by Caroline May, The Daily Caller August 8, 2012

Well, thank you very much Caroline!  Welcome to the party!  VDARE.com first wrote about public charge problem back in 2001.

Public charge has been a dead letter law since Jorge Bush, but the major damage was done under Bill Clinton.

From the “Public Charge Fact Sheet” of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website—bait:

The agency guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and State or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “General Assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a non-citizen inadmissible as a public charge, if all other criteria are met.

…and switch!

However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances. [My emphasis]

And by "case-by-case" they mean: never.

Which is why Obama’s USDA is blithely advertising in Spanish to get immigrants on its food stamp program.

Members of Congress are seeking any information on how many aliens have either been deported, refused entry or denied an immigrant or non-immigrant visa of late:

In an interview with The DC, an outraged Sen. Sessions did not mince words about the resident immigrants who have become public charges.

“We would like to know how many [there are], how big the problem is, how much it is costing the United States Treasury — because this is clearly a burden on the Treasury,” Sessions said.

And they will find that no-one is counting. 

As a matter of fact, there was an attempt to start using the public charge section of law against, not immigrants, but legal non-immigrant aliens in California in the mid-90s.  [Welfare Costs For Immigrants, By John Tanton, Social Contract Press,  Volume 3, Number 1 (Fall 1992)]

Under the Pete Wilson administration, the State of California, Department of Social Services (DSS), Fraud Bureau, and the Department of Healthcare Services (DHS), Audits and Investigations, began a major program, working with the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), at Ports-of-Entry, both air and land ports, where non-immigrant aliens, e.g. those aliens with a non-immigrant visa or from a Visa Waiver Program country, were screened for welfare use. Then, if they refused to reimburse the State of California, were refused entry. 

Remember, “non-immigrants” are temporary visitors to the United States—for business, pleasure, or personal reasons.  However the benefits side of the DSS, DHS, and the various county level agencies were happily handing out welfare benefits to any alien regardless of status—legal, temporary, immigrant, non-immigrant, illegal, it did not matter. 

Governor Wilson wanted that money back. And for a few years the program was on fire, recouping millions of fraudulent welfare and healthcare benefits. 

All the alien had to do was claim to be a California resident, and the benefits were granted.  But, because they were seeking admission as non-immigrants, the aliens were faced with a conundrum: admit they were not residents and face a criminal investigation by California’s Department of Social Services Fraud Bureau or Department of Health Care Services  Audits and Investigations; or maintain the claim they were residents and face action from the late unlamented INS. Telling the  State of California that they were residents of California would be  an admission that they were violating the terms of their non-immigrant visa.

Significantly, even then the public charge threat from the legacy INS was mostly bluff. At the time, INS Immigration Inspectors were instructed to not use the “public charge” exclusion charge (212(a)(4)), but use a fraud charge (212 (a)(6)(C) or immigrant without an immigrant visa exclusion charge (212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). See Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 Fed. Reg. 28689 [May 26, 1999] (An “exclusion charge” is what the USCIS calls any reason for not letting an alien into the country.)

Curiously, among the most flagrant non-immigrant alien abusers of MediCal and its benefits, besides the usual Mexicans who came over daily for free healthcare, were Filipinos—especially stewardesses for Philippine Airlines.  Their usual method: give birth to a child here, winning the anchor-baby lottery and having it paid for the American taxpayer.  It was quite easy for them, as usually Philippine Airlines flight crews obtained not only a crew member visa (C-1/D) but a tourist visa as well (B-2).

Wilson’s program worked quite well. But the Treason Bar soon heard of it and it was quickly and quietly smothered under Gray Davis.

So this attention is nice. But where were Republican Senators and Conservatism Inc. when Jorge Bush was not enforcing the public charge aspect of immigration law?

The blogger Federale (Email him) is a 4th generation Californian and a veteran of federal law enforcement, including service in the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and other federal law enforcement agencies.

Federale's opinions do not represent those of the Department of Homeland Security or the federal government, and are an exercise of rights protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Print Friendly and PDF