Welfare for immigrants is alien to our laws, history, and traditions

From Conservative Review:

Immigration is an elective policy of a sovereign nation. It should benefit America and never create a public charge. That notion is one of the most foundational principles of our country. It dates back to colonial times and has been enforced by the states since the founding and then by the federal government when it fully reclaimed immigration in the 1880s. That immigrants shouldn’t be a public charge is still the law on the books, yet it’s rarely enforced. Now that the Trump administration is seeking to enforce the law, suddenly the Left is screaming about denying immigrants their rightful citizenship.

NBC published a report predicting that any week now, Stephen Miller will convince President Trump to sign off on a policy denying citizenship to those immigrants on welfare. In other words, he will be the first president in recent years to follow the letter and spirit of immigration statutes. The media is ready with a barrage of sob stories with no regard for the harm to American citizens.

Our history, tradition, and law: Immigration should only benefit the nation

The notion of immigrants coming here and obtaining public assistance would have been foreign to our Founders, even if they could have envisioned a welfare state for those already here. In 1813, Madison said emphatically to Morris Birkbeck, “… it is not either the provision of our laws or the practice of the Government to give any encouragement to emigrants, unless it be in cases where they may bring with them some special addition to our stock of arts or articles of culture.”

As I note in Chapter 6 of my book, this is why, already in the 1600s, the northern colonies, and later on the southern colonies, adopted public charge laws denying entry to “paupers.” Even after the Constitution was already signed but still in the process of being ratified, the Continental Congress passed a law in 1788, pursuant to the Articles of Confederation, urging states to pass laws “preventing the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries.” A number of states followed suit and banished those viewed as criminals or impoverished.

During the debate over the Naturalization Act of 1790, Madison declared, “I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege [citizenship], but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.”

In the 1820s and ’30s, New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland (the “border states” of those days) passed laws mandating inspections of landing vessels at the ports to weed out those who would likely be a public charge. In City of New York v. Milne (1837), the Supreme Court deemed New York’s regulation of ships transporting immigrants preventing “multitudes of poor persons” from coming “without possessing the means of supporting themselves” as constitutional and not infringing upon the foreign commerce power of the federal government.

There can be no mode in which the power to regulate internal police could be more appropriately exercised. … Can anything fall more directly within the police power and internal regulation of a state than that which concerns the care and management of paupers or convicts or any other class or description of persons that may be thrown into the country and likely to endanger its safety, or become chargeabl[e] for their maintenance?

If this is how our early political figures thought of state powers to reject public charge (and certainly criminals), how much more so the power of the federal government to protect the whole of the union? Massachusetts passed a similar law, in 1837 when immigration began to increase, requiring an inspection of all aliens aboard a ship and denying the right to land to any passenger thought to be indigent unless the master of the vessel posted bond to ensure that no such “indigent passenger shall become a city, town, or state charge within 10 years.”

While the federal government was able to regulate immigration any time after 1808, pursuant to Art. I Sec. 9, it only regulated naturalization and left the laws of entry to the “border states” like New York and Massachusetts for many of the early years. However, even during that time, since most people would only emigrate en masse with support of the government, the State Department often used diplomatic tools to block public charges (see the Chinese Exclusion case).

Once Congress reclaimed the full power to regulate entry in 1882, these state public charge laws were codified into federal law almost verbatim. The laws passed in the 1880s and 1890s not only barred the entry of those who would constitute a public charge (still the law on the books), but held the owner of the vessel that transported those aliens liable for the cost of their return trip and their temporary stay on American soil. These laws were so strictly enforced that even inadmissible aliens who came during World War I (and couldn’t return to Europe) were only given temporary harbor if relatives paid for their entire stay (see Kaplan v. Tod, 1925).

Read More>>

 

Advertisements

Top 20% of Income Earners Will Pay 87% of Taxes in 2018

From The Political Insider:

2018 will be the first year with the Donald Trump tax cuts in effect.

While initially unpopular, the majority of voters do now support Trump’s tax package. Most had been misinformed by the media that the tax cuts were just tax cuts “for the rich,” and not for ordinary Americans.

In reality, the Trump tax cuts reduced the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 37 percent, and the bottom rate fell from 10 percent to zero. The 15 percent rate dropped to 12 percent, the 25 percent rate to 22, the 28 percent rate to 24 and the 33 percent rate to 32. The tax cut was most beneficial for the lower and middle class, and the standard deduction was doubled.

Taxpayers are seeing the proof in their paychecks.

Additionally, the hundreds of companies announcing $1,000+ bonuses to their employees as a result of tax reform also helped boost the tax cut package’s popularity.

One social experiment showed that liberals even favor the Trump tax plan when it’s presented to them as being attributed to Bernie Sanders.

Just three years ago, the top 20% of income taxpayers paid 84% of all income taxes. For some context, the top 20% earn “only” about 51% of national income in a given year. In other words, they’re paying out of proportion to the percent of total income they earn (which is to be expected with a progressive income tax).

This year, despite media cries that the Trump tax cut is only for the wealthy, they’ll be paying a larger share of the income taxes this year.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

In 2018, top earners will pay a higher share of income taxes.

The individual income tax matters—a lot—because it is the largest single source of U.S. revenue. And its share has risen in recent years. For 2018, it could raise 50% of total federal revenue, according to estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, up from about 48% last year.

Surprised? Only the mainstream media should be.