TribLIVE

| Opinion/The Review


 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

How Dems build a constituency

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or cmcnickle@tribweb.com).

Daily Photo Galleries

By Byron York
Friday, April 5, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
 

Did you know that U.S. law forbids the admission of any immigrant who is likely to depend on public assistance? It's in Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, first passed in the 1950s and still the law today:

“Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.”

The plain language of the law hardly squares with reports that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has sought to promote the use of food stamps and other welfare programs among newly arrived immigrants. (Legal ones; the law forbids those benefits for illegal immigrants.) In 2004, the feds even began a partnership with the Mexican government to encourage Mexicans to sign up for government assistance as soon as they arrived in the U.S.

And now, the Obama administration forbids American consular officers from even considering whether a prospective immigrant might end up on dozens of public assistance programs when evaluating that immigrant's admissibility to the U.S. The policy came as a surprise to four top Republican senators when they learned about it last year.

“It has long been a sound principle of immigration law that those who seek citizenship in this country ought to be financially self-sufficient,” Sens. Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley and Pat Roberts wrote in an August 2012 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In the early hours of March 23, during the so-called vote-a-rama on amendments to the budget, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 56-43, a measure that would have denied access to Medicaid and, in coming years, to subsidies under ObamaCare, for immigrants who came to the United States illegally but would be legalized through immigration reform.

The vote was almost entirely along party lines: Democrats voted against the amendment and Republicans voted for it.

Sessions, an opponent of the so-called Gang of Eight bipartisan outline for reform, touted the vote as a milestone. “The Senate Democrat majority voted to extend free and subsidized health care — specifically, Medicaid and ObamaCare — to illegal immigrants, who could be granted legal status under any comprehensive immigration bill,” he said. “The result of (this) vote places immigration reform in jeopardy.”

Every Democrat on the Gang of Eight — Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez and Michael Bennet — voted against the amendment while the Republican members of the group — Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake — voted for it.

Republican members, especially Rubio, have repeatedly insisted that newly legalized immigrants will not be eligible for federal benefits under their comprehensive immigration reform proposal, and there's no reason to think they don't mean what they say. But the Democrat majority's vote on the Sessions amendment, plus the Obama administration's extraordinarily lax policy on benefits, suggests Democrats have very different ideas on the subject.

That could indeed place immigration reform in jeopardy.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Penguins’ Letang leaves hospital, ‘day-to-day’ with concussion
  2. NFL coaches weigh in on Polamalu’s legacy
  3. Starkey: Next frontier for Steelers offense
  4. Building damaged, no injuries after Fayette recycling center fire
  5. Shortfalls sabotage promise of union retirees’ pensions
  6. Pirates pitchers finding success with expanded strike zone
  7. Mt. Lebanon native, Iraq war hero’s action goes unrewarded
  8. South Side house part of former Steeler’s end game
  9. Alvarez latest in Pirates’ revolving door at first base
  10. Pitt’s Amara offers Vision of hope
  11. From sticks to pucks, Mt. Pleasant collector wields power of the Pens