Trump’s Jobs Record Is Weaker Than Everyone Thought
-
Soul_Venom — 6 years ago(February 11, 2020 12:07 PM)
The Trump administration on Monday is implementing the long-awaited “public charge” rule that restricts green cards for immigrants deemed likely to be reliant on welfare — a rule furiously opposed by Democrats, but one that officials argue will protect taxpayers and align with American principles.
“It’s consistent with our law for over 140 years, it's a core American value of self-sufficiency, and it’s just plain old logic — what country wants to bring welfare problems into its society? We don't want to do that,” acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli told Fox News ahead of the rule going into effect. "We’re happy to open our doors to people from all over the world but we expect them to stand on their own two feet."
GREYHOUND TO STOP ALLOWING BORDER PATROL AGENTS TO CONDUCT IMMIGRATION CHECKS ON BUSES WITHOUT WARRANTS
The Trump administration had published the rule in August, scheduled to go into effect in October, but it was blocked amid a series of court challenges. The Supreme Court lifted preliminary injunctions in January in a 5-4 vote. It ruled the same way on a separate injunction for the state of Illinois on Friday, allowing the rule to go into effect across the country on Monday.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
"This final rule will protect hardworking American taxpayers, safeguard welfare programs for truly needy Americans, reduce the Federal deficit, and re-establish the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largess of United States taxpayers," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement Friday.
While a "public charge" standard is already part of U.S. immigration law, and immigrants have regularly had to provide documents to demonstrate self-sufficiency, the standard has been lacking a formal statutory definition. Officials have been working on interim guidance published in 1999, but have been without a final rule.
The new rule defines a “public charge” as an immigrant who received one or more designated benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period. Those benefits that would be designated included Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), as well as most forms of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. The rule expands the number of benefits that can be considered from interim guidance issued in 1999.
It also excludes certain benefits from consideration — including tax credits, emergency medical assistance, disaster relief, national school lunch programs, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and Medicaid received by individuals under 21 years of age and pregnant women.
Homeland Security reviewing two administration immigration programs looking to expedite deportation processVideo
The rule would be applied to immigrants on temporary or nonimmigrant visas seeking to adjust their status to permanent residency. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that about 382,000 immigrants would be reviewed each year, but that doesn’t indicate how many would ultimately be rejected on public charge grounds.
SOTOMAYOR ISSUES BLISTERING DISSENT, SAYS REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED JUSTICES HAVE BIAS TOWARD TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
The rule has been fiercely opposed by liberal activists and civil rights groups, who claim it may have a chilling effect on migrants who need help yet fear seeking it would disqualify them from permanent residency.
“Nearly every sector of society has gone on record in opposition to this morally repugnant and legally dubious regulation, and for good reason: its implementation will hurt countless of immigrant and citizen families, and we’re all worse off as a result,” Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said in a statement last month.
Democratic presidential front-runner Bernie Sanders has promised to reverse the policy, along with a number of other Trump immigration policies, claiming it is "designed to demonize and hurt those who are the most vulnerable of all."
But Cuccinelli told Fox News that those arguments point to a “fundamental difference” between perspectives when it comes to immigration.
“We don't think immigrants should be relying on the U.S. government for welfare and they have some legal ability to do that, but if that's their approach to the United States of America and they have no interest in self sufficiency and standing on their own two feet, that's not who we want joining our American community long term,” he said.
He also said that when talking to Americans about the rule, he found the main reaction was surprise that such a rule was even required in the first place.
“The reaction by most ordinary Americans that talk to me about this is ‘I can’t believe we needed to do this, I can't believe that welfare is available for people who aren’t American citizens or who aren’t already here on a permanent basis.’ They ar -
ITTYMisandryGwnyc — 6 years ago(February 12, 2020 09:28 AM)
Wasnt he gonna become the first Emperor of America, or was it one of his sons?
He is also forcing Ivanka to divorce Jared Kushner to preserve his caucasian ethnicity for generations to come. either that or he will disown her. She is one stupid shiksa. -
Soul_Venom — 6 years ago(February 24, 2020 01:35 PM)
President Trump was furious that 14 Americans infected with the coronavirus returned to the United States without his permission rather than remain in quarantine overseas, according to a new report.
Trump had been briefed that the healthy U.S. passengers who spent weeks quarantined aboard the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Japan would be allowed to fly home on two chartered planes – while those who were sick or infected would stay in Japan to prevent the spread of the deadly virus.
The president became "furious" with senior advisers after learning the 14 Americans who tested positive had been put on a plane with healthy passengers, according to The Washington Post. One official told the paper that the failure to inform Trump of the decision in advance of the plane's departure was a “big operational mistake.”
CORONAVIRUS CLAIMS LIVES OF 2 DIAMOND PRINCESS PASSENGERS FROM JAPAN, HEALTH OFFICIALS SAY
Trump complained that bringing home the infected Americans could damage the adminstratration's response to the global health outbreak.
While the Americans evacuated from the ship were on buses on the tarmac in Tokyo, U.S. officials got the results back that 14 had tested positive for COVID-19 but had not yet shown symptoms. Officials made the decision to have them fly home anyway, but “isolated” from the other passengers on the plane.
“These individuals were moved in the most expeditious and safe manner to a specialized containment area on the evacuation aircraft to isolate them in accordance with standard protocol,” the State Department and Department of Health and Human Services said in a joint statement Monday.
“After consultation with HHS officials … the State Department made the decision to allow the 14 individuals, who were in isolation, separated from other passengers, and continued to be asymptomatic, to remain on the aircraft to complete the evacuation process.”
The infected passengers were to be isolated for medical care upon arriving back in the United States.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“Every precaution to ensure proper isolation and community protection measures are being taken, driven by the most up-to-date risk assessments by U.S. health authorities,” State and HHS officials said.
The viral outbreak that began in China has now spread to nearly 78,000 people globally, including 76,288 in mainland China. Here are the latest figures for the number of people who have contracted COVID-19:
— Mainland China: 2,345 deaths among 76,288 cases, mostly in the central province of Hubei
— Hong Kong: 69 cases, 2 deaths
— Macao: 10 cases
— Japan: 754 cases, including 634 from the cruise ship docked in Yokohama, 3 deaths
— South Korea: 433 cases, 2 deaths
— Singapore: 89 cases
— United States: 35 cases; separately, 1 U.S. citizen died in China
— Thailand: 35 cases
— Iran: 28 cases, 5 deaths
— Taiwan: 26 cases, 1 death
— Australia: 23 cases
— Malaysia: 22
— Italy: 19 cases; 1 death
— Vietnam: 16 cases
— Germany: 16
— France: 12 cases, 1 death
— United Arab Emirates: 11 cases
— United Kingdom: 9
— Canada: 9
— Philippines: 3 cases, 1 death
— India: 3 cases
— Russia: 2
— Spain: 2
— Lebanon: 1
— Israel: 1
— Belgium: 1
— Nepal: 1
— Sri Lanka: 1
— Sweden: 1
— Cambodia: 1
— Finland: 1
— Egypt: 1
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
Mr. Smith — 6 years ago(February 16, 2020 06:29 PM)
So half of the country is a bunch of pedos? That’s a brilliant assessment. And I’m guessing they’re all Russians too right?
I see now why in kindergarten you couldn’t get past Mr. S in your alphabet exercises!
A Southern Gentleman! -
Soul_Venom — 6 years ago(February 24, 2020 01:36 PM)
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee late Sunday called out Sen. Bernie Sanders over his decision to skip its conference next month in Washington and blaming his decision on his concern that the group provides a platform for leaders to "express bigotry" and oppose basic Palestinian rights.
CHAD PERGRAM: CAN SANDERS ACTUALLY HELP DOWN-BALLOT DEMS?
Sanders, who is on the heels of an emphatic win in the Nevada Caucuses, took to Twitter on Sunday to voice his concern about the influential lobby. The Vermont senator vowed that if elected president he would work with both Israelis and Palestinians to bring peace and stability to the region.
Bernie Sanders
@BernieSanders
The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason I will not attend their conference. 1/2
82.3K
4:34 PM - Feb 23, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
16K people are talking about this
AIPAC wasted little time to respond to the public rebuke and called his comments an ill-informed and an "odious attack." The pro-Israel lobby said Sanders never attended a conference, which is "evident in the outrageous comment."
"Senator Sanders is insulting his very own colleagues and the millions of Americans who stand with Israel," the statement read. "Truly shameful."
Last year, liberal groups like MoveOn called on Democratic candidates to sidestep the annual conference. The groups claimed that the lobby tried to thwart the Iran nuclear deal and backed Israel's unfair settlement policies, according to reports. A candidate's decision to shun the conference could bolster his progressive support.
Last year, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., one of the first Muslim women in Congress, insinuated that lobbyists with AIPAC were paying lawmakers to support Israel. Her remark drew bipartisan criticism and a rebuke from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Omar ended up apologizing for her comments.
Presidential candidates used to view the AIPAC gathering as a crucial campaign stop.
President Trump used the decision by top Democrats to skip last year's AIPAC event as evidence that they are anti-Israel.
GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"I don’t know what’s happened to them but they are totally anti-Israel,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn, according to The Hill. “Frankly, I think they’re anti-Jewish.”
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
Soul_Venom — 6 years ago(February 24, 2020 01:36 PM)
Bernie Sanders is on a roll. After a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, and “Berning” through Nevada, the socialist senator from Vermont is without a doubt the Democrat front-runner.
Odds-makers are giving Bernie a 55 percent chance of becoming the Democrat nominee.
Which raises a legitimate question: Do Democrats actually want to win the White House in November?
PAUL BATURA: RONALD REAGAN WARNED US ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS – OVER 40 YEARS AGO
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
I ask because it is generally agreed that ousting President Trump will require winning back those blue-collar workers in swing states who crossed party lines to vote Republican in 2016. Sanders is most definitely not the most likely candidate to do that.
There’s a reason that left-wing commentator Chris Mathews compared Sanders’ win in Nevada to France falling to the Nazis in 1940. For Democrats, it’s almost that dire.
But really, Bernie is not alone. No candidate seems to be tailoring his or her message to those traditional Democrats who rejected Hillary Clinton.
Remember them?
More from Opinion
Peggy Grande: Blue states for Trump – here's how voters there can boost president's reelection
Adam Goodman: At Tuesday’s Democratic debate, Bloomberg should take advice from Rocky and show up as a fighter
Justin Haskins: Amy Klobuchar’s support for the socialist Green New Deal proves she’s no moderate
Folks: this is simple. There are a great many longtime Democrats living in toss-up states who didn’t like the direction that President Obama took the country. Those voters, many of them union members, decided to take a flyer on neophyte candidate Donald Trump. Why? Because he talked about things that mattered to them – like jobs and manufacturing and trade deals. He also appealed to their patriotism and common sense, like putting America first.
In the end, better job opportunities and higher wages were more important to them than climate change or gender neutrality or a whole bunch of politically correct drivel that Democrats want to ram down the country’s throat.
These are people who love their country, and don’t buy Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden’s claim that it is essentially racist. These are people who go to church and abhor the Democrats’ enthusiasm for legalizing full-term abortion. These are people who work hard, pay their taxes, and believe others should do the same.
These are not nutty people; they are the backbone of our country. And right now, they are looking at Sanders and the other candidates who want to represent the Democratic Party – the party of their parents and grandparents – and saying: these folks do not care about me.
They would be right.
From the outset of the campaign, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on “Medicare-for-all,” dragging others along with them, convinced that health care was the issue that would topple Republicans. Ironically, they might have been right. The GOP has made a total hash of overhauling ObamaCare and proposing a better alternative, in part thanks to the late Sen. John McCain, who single-handedly undermined the party’s health-care initiative.
Sanders has led a marvelously fact-free campaign. When asked how he will fund his programs, he dismisses the question and acts as though trillion-dollar price tags are insignificant details.
But the approach taken by Bernie and other progressives was so extreme – demanding the end of private insurance – that, rather than galvanizing support for Democrats, it fractured the party. Astonishingly, the candidates who jumped aboard single-payer health care never stopped to think about how their plan would impact union workers, who would be the group most opposed to ending private insurance.
For decades organized labor fought for the best insurance programs money could buy, and they got them. Companies preferred giving out lavish health-care and pension benefits to increasing wages, which would have a more immediate impact on their bottom line.
These days, the costs of those health-care plans are enormous, and the coverage is excellent – far better than would be available under Bernie’s nationwide government-run system. Union workers are not stupid; they know this would be a loss for them, and they will resist it.
Remember that Obamacare was to be paid for in part by a 40 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans – the high-end plans that unions enjoy. That tax was delayed twice by Congress and finally repealed, so intense was the opposition from Big Labor.
That resistance hasn’t changed. Sanders found that out when the Culinary Workers in Nevada failed to endorse him, even as he was the obvious front-runner in their state.
It isn’t just on health care that Democrats have gone off the reservation. Consider the candidates – Bernie among them – vowing to ban fracking, and promising the end of fossil fuels. Are they not aware that in critical swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio thousands of workers are making lots of money working in the oilfields? That those states have h