Mediaboss Marketing

The Elephant in the Classroom: Mass Immigration's Impact on Public Education Public school districts across the United States are suffering under a massive unfunded mandate imposed by the federal government: the requirement to educate millions of illegal aliens, the school age children of illegal aliens, refugees and legal immigrant students. The struggle to fund programs for students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), sometimes called English Language Learners (ELL), represents a major drain on school budgets. Yet due to political correctness, it is taboo to raise the issue even though scarce resources are redirected away from American citizens to support programs like English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and English as a Second Language (ESL).

The Role of State and Local Governments in Immigration Enforcement As the American dream becomes increasingly elusive for U.S. citizens, state and local lawmakers have a decision to make. They can stand back and watch as America's immigration system is systematically undermined by non-enforcement policies and special interests, or they can stand up and look for solutions to help maintain the rule of law and institute policies that guarantee fairness and opportunity for all Americans.

11 Things American Taxpayers Should Know About Trumps Executive Orders on Immigration|2017 President Donald Trump has issued several Executive Orders and Memos this week regarding immigration - below is our 11 point summary.

E-Verify Legislation in the States|2016 Perhaps the most pressing consequence of uncontrolled immigration is the immediate toll it places upon the American worker. Illegal immigration dramatically increases competition in the labor market, particularly for low-skilled jobs, and depresses wages by perpetuating a class of workers willing to work for substandard wages.

Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections|2016 The United States sends election monitors around the world to help discourage fraudulent balloting. But, here at home, it has largely turned a blind eye to the possibility that fraudulent voting by noncitizens could influence the outcome of an election.

Phase Down Mass Immigration|2016 Mass immigration jams schools, hospitals and highways and it undervalues American workers who lose out to cheap foreign labor.

Examples of Serious Crimes By Illegal Aliens|2016 Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. All across the country, Americans are having their lives forever changed by criminal aliens.

Immigration Basics: Human Trafficking|2016 Human trafficking is a crime that hides in plain sight. Thousands of people become victims each year, but only a few see their perpetrators convicted.

Examples of Serious Crimes by Illegal Aliens|2016 News accounts of crimes that may have been prevented if the alien had been deported or stopped from entering the country illegally.

The Truth About the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP)|2016 In the summer of 2015, the Obama administration began implementing its Priority Enforcement Program (PEP). Replacing the well-known Secure Communities program, PEP should have been called the Pretend Enforcement Program because thats what it doespretends to enforce the law.

Criminal Aliens|2016 Criminal aliens are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a drain on our scarce criminal justice resources.

FAIR Answers FWD.uss Questions to Donald Trump|2016 Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, the tech industry-backed amnesty and open borders lobby group, FWD.us, has made public six questions theyd like him to respond to.

The Role of State & Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies|2016 With over 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States, and hundreds of thousands more unlawfully crossing the border and overstaying visas each year, states all around the country are subject to the problems caused by unchecked illegal immigration. Communication and cooperation by state and local law enforcement with federal officials is essential to combating the negative effects of illegal immigration.

United States v. Texas: A Primer on the Supreme Court Immigration Case|2016 On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case United States v. Texas, which questions the constitutionality of President Barack Obamas unilateral grant of de facto amnesty to almost 5 million illegal aliens.

Employer Sanctions|2016 The ability to find work is the number one magnet for illegal immigration to the United States. Although the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 outlawed hiring illegal alien workers, it is still a widespread practice by employers across the country.

Temporary Protected Status|2016 Illegal aliens get work permits under Temporary Protected Status

How to Report Illegal Immigrants|2016 Local ICE office phone numbers

Illegal Alien Removals in 2015|2016 The Department of Homeland Security released its immigration enforcement data for FY 2015 along with self-congratulatory analysis from Secretary Jeh Johnson claiming enormous success in ensuring the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration laws.

Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean|2015 The amount of money transferred by foreign workers back to their home countries, known as remittances, has continued to grow annually throughout the Obama administration.

Amnesty: Breaking the Social Security Bank|2015 Those who advocate comprehensive immigration reform (i.e., amnesty for illegal aliens and massive increases in the annual admissions of legal immigrants and guest workers) avoid discussing the potential costs of granting amnesty to approximately 12 million illegal aliens.

Sanctuary Policy is Bad Public Policy|2015 In cities across the country, local jurisdictions have gone so far as to shield illegal aliens by adopting policies that restrict state and local police from cooperating with federal authorities. In all but the most serious cases, they are being directed to ignore U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers. Cities with such anti-detainer policies are considered "Sanctuary Cities."

White House Report Confirms President Obama's Executive Actions Will Harm American Workers, Taxpayers|2015 The fact that the President's executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional and illegal must not be overlooked when discussing their economic effects. An economy that rewards those who are most willing to break the law is not a sound one.

Questions Everyone Should Ask about Executive Amnesty|2014 For months leading up to President Obamas November 20th executive amnesty announcement, political leaders (from both parties including the president himself up until about March), legal experts, and many in the media have been questioning the constitutionality of such a plan without legislative approval from Congress.

Defining Amnesty for the Factually Impaired|2014 Reasonable people may disagree about what is the best immigration policy, including what to do about the roughly twelve million illegal aliens now in the country, but what is indisputably, unambiguously clear is that to allow millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States in violation of current law is the very definition of amnesty.

"Illegal Alien": The Proper Terminology|2014 Under federal law, any non-U.S. citizen is an alien. Aliens who have entered the United States without permission, or who have violated the terms of their admission, are identified under the law as illegal aliens. That is a fact, not an issue for debate. (2014)

Misrepresenting Wage Gains for 1986 Amnesty Recipients: The Center for American Progress Distorts Data to Fit Their Amnesty Agenda|2013 The presentation of the Department of Labor (DOL) survey is based on a misreading of the data because Hinojosa and others are making the argument that amnesty will raise the "wage floor" for the average illegal alien. What the DOL survey actually revealed was that the earnings of those 1986 amnesty recipients who were younger, better educated, spoke English well, were earning better than average wages before amnesty -- indicating higher levels of job skills -- and were not from Mexico, continued to outpace the earnings of those who did not fit this profile.

Analysis of Claims of an Economic Benefit from Amnesty|2013 FAIR responses to the Center for American Progress (CAP) claims on economic benefit from Amnesty.

Flawed Claims of Improved Earnings of Amnestied Aliens|2013 Organizations such as the Center for American Progress (CAP) have mounted a campaign to convince lawmakers that amnesty for the nearly 12 million illegal alien residents is justified on economic grounds. FAIR's analysis of one of the principal research studies relied on by CAP finds that the research misunderstands or misrepresents the results of survey data obtained from beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty. Rather than the reported finding of economic progress by the amnesty recipients, the survey data reveal economic progress for only a minority of the amnesty beneficiaries and economic slippage for the majority of beneficiaries.

Illegal Aliens Who Pay Taxes May Claim Tax Credits|2013 Organizations such as the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) have mounted a campaign to convince lawmakers that amnesty for the nearly 12 million illegal alien residents is justified on economic grounds. FAIR's analysis of the IPC's claim that illegal aliens are an important source of tax revenue exposes the underlying false assumptions used to assert that illegal alien workers already pay a fair share of taxes and would pay even more if they gained legal status.

Would the Dreamer Amnesty Benefit the Economy?|2013 The DREAM Act is Not Justified as an Economic Boon. The DREAM Act is a limited amnesty provision designed to further the eventual adoption of a general amnesty. The argument that the measure would benefit the economy is a distraction from the massive fiscal costs of the full-scale amnesty for which it would be a precursor. Further, the research that suggests the DREAM Act would result in a large economic benefit is based on unrealistic assumptions and flawed analysis. Only in passing do the researchers who assert the economic benefit of adoption of the DREAM Act note that their analysis fails to consider any offsetting fiscal costs.

Illegal Aliens Taking U.S. Jobs|2013 FAIR estimates that roughly 8.5 million illegal immigrants have taken jobs away from Americans. Read the 2013 brief to see what states and sectors are affected the most.

Local Immigration Enforcement|2013 State and local efforts can make a difference

Visa Overstayers|2013 The illegal aliens who do not leave when their entry permit expires are referred to as overstayers.

Illegal Immigration is a Crime|2013 Legal proscriptions against aiding and abetting etc.

Congressional Seats and Federal Outlays|2013 Giving weight to illegal aliens

Demographics of the Illegal Alien Population|2013 Based on two studies mandated by Congress, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided two studies in 1992 and 1996 of the demographics of illegal immigration.

How Many Illegal Immigrants?|2011 FAIR estimates that in 2010 the illegal alien population is about 12 million persons. Government and academic estimates estimate that population at about 11 million.

Section 245(i): "Adjustment of Status"|2011 An amnesty provision tested and discredited

The Truth About Employment-Based Immigration|2011 Although big business likes to claim that our present high level of immigration is necessary for its survival and the robustness of our economy, the fact is that only a small fraction of today's million plus new green cards issued annually go to highly-skilled workers.

How did Illegal Aliens Arrive: Without Inspection or With Visas?|2011 Illegal aliens are divided into two categories; those who crossed the border illegally and those who entered with visas as nonimmigrants and stayed illegally.

Immigration and Big Labor|2010 Over eleven million Americans are out of work and millions more are in danger of losing their jobs. One would think that, at this time, American labor unions would be stepping up to protect American workers, but just the opposite is occurring. Right now the largest labor unions in the U.S. are lobbying Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal workers, to stop enforcing laws against employers who hire illegal workers, and to keep up the flow of millions more foreign workers.

Department of Homeland Security's Non-Enforcement Policy|2010 A series of policy changes announced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2010 demonstrate that the Obama administration is implementing a stealth amnesty - halting deportation of illegal aliens - for persons it hopes to benefit in the future with a permanent amnesty. This policy triggered a "vote of no confidence" by the professional employees of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Birthright Citizenship|2010 The term "birthright citizenship" refers to the current practice of considering children born in the United States to automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. This issue is also commonly termed the "anchor baby" issue.

State and Local Cooperation on Immigration Enforcement: ICE Access|2010 There are several programs that currently facilitate cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and state and local law enforcement agencies. Most of these programs managed by DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) branch are grouped under the rubric of ICE Access. The ICE Access programs most often in the news are Secure Communities and 287(g).

The Push For Amnesty For Illegal Aliens|2010 Review some of the common talking points from pro-amnesty advocates and their argument doesn't work.

Interior Immigration Enforcement Musical Chairs|2009 The Obama Administration has launched a new worksite enforcement policy that ostensibly is aimed at employers and avoids the arrests of illegal workers that was an integral aspect of previous enforcement efforts. This new policy likely will have the effect of undermining any effective prosecution of employers for deliberately hiring illegal alien workers and leave the illegal workers free to seek a new job.

Paving the Road to Amnesty|2009 As President Obama closes the books on his first year in office, his record, as opposed to his rhetoric, now defines his political agenda. During 2009, President Obama's record on immigration policy points to certain inescapable conclusions. The overriding objectives of this administration are to enact a massive amnesty for current illegal aliens and vastly expand future flows of immigration to the United States.

Illegal Alien or "Undocumented Immigrant?"|2009 America uses the term "illegal alien" to describe someone in our country in violation of our immigration laws not to demean someone, but rather because it is the correct, and legally recognized, term.

Employment Document Verification|2009 Learn about the background and effectiveness of E-Verify, the federal employment document verification program.

Illegal Immigration and Public Health|2009 Costs and imported infectious diseases.

The Costs to Local Taxpayers for Illegal Aliens|2008 Summary fiscal cost estimates by state amount to $36.6 billion dollars annually for providing public K-12 education, incarceration and emergency medical care for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children.

Attrition of Illegal Immigrants through Enforcement|2008 Learn how illegal immigration can be reduced by enforcing current laws, securing our national borders and closing the loopholes on employing illegal immigrants.

Human TraffickingExploitation of Illegal Aliens|2016 The large and persistent influx of illegal aliens contributes to an environment of vulnerability and abuse.

Foreign Consulate Operations in the United States|2008 There are limits to what foreign government officials may do abroad despite their immunity from the applications of our laws in most cases.

Why Amnesty Isn't the Solution|2007 Amnesty didn't work in 1986. See what the 27-year-old failed policy costs U.S. taxpayers and why it wouldn't work in 2013.

Unlicensed to Kill|2006 Illegal aliens are a hit-and-run threat

U.S. Cuba Policy Rewards Illegal Immigration|2006 Only Cubans get automatic parole

Organizations Supporting Amnesty for Illegal Aliens|2005 2005-2006

Mexico's Defense of Illegal Immigrants|2005 Intervening in U.S. domestic affairs

What's Wrong With Illegal Immigration?|2005 Economic, fiscal, and social impacts.

Huddle 1996 study of costs of illiegal iimmigration|2004 Illegal alien workers may increase profits for employers, but they are costly to the American taxpayer.

Mexican Matricula Consular ID Cards|2003 Intervening in U.S. domestic affairs.

Social Security Funds for Illegal Aliens?|2003 Proposed agreement with Mexico

Taxpayers Subsidizing College for Illegal Aliens|2003 Some states burden taxpayers.

Day Laborer Hiring Sites|2002 Providing jobs for illegal aliens

The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens|1999 Legal overview.

More:
Illegal Immigration | Federation for American Immigration ...

Wichita Eagle

Kobach pushes bills to target illegal immigration in Kansas | The ... Wichita Eagle Secretary of State Kris Kobach wants the Kansas Highway Patrol to partner with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on immigration enforcement. Another ... Donald Trump confidant Kris Kobach presses for tough Kansas immigration actionTopeka Capital Journal all 7 news articles »

Read more:
Kobach pushes bills to target illegal immigration in Kansas | The ... - Wichita Eagle

President Trump's reported heated phone call to Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Did Donald Trump really hang up on the Australian prime minister?

Thats what a Washington Post report based on anonymous sources says.

Reportedly, the heated Jan. 28 exchange was about a refugee agreement between the United States and Australia, countries that are usually close allies.

We cant know how the call really went down, but a few days later, Trump slammed the agreement publicly on Twitter.

"Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!" Trump tweeted Feb. 1.

Trumps tweet mischaracterizes the deal in two ways. First, the deal involves fewer than 2,000 people. Thats not "thousands." Second, the individuals would not come to the United States illegally, but through the legal refugee program.

Background on the Australian deal

Australia has a strict policy against illegal maritime arrivals. The country has intercepted migrants at sea and sent them to regional processing centers on Pacific islands away from Australia, specifically Nauru and Manus. (Manus is part of Papua New Guinea).

Instances of abuse have been reported at the centers, with the United Nations calling for the closure of the Nauru facilities after claims of "violence, sexual assault, degrading treatment and self-harm."

Papua New Guineas Supreme Court in April 2016 ruled that detaining refugees at the Manus facility was illegal, because they had not willfully entered the island. Australian officials said in August they would close the Manus facility but still would not accept the detainees into their country.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in November 2016 that his government reached an agreement with the United States for the resettlement of refugees held in its regional processing centers. Most of those refugees are from Iran, Iraq and Somalia.

The centers held 1,254 individuals not "thousands" as Trump said as of a November 2016 immigration detention report.

"The priority under this arrangement will be for resettlement of those who are most vulnerable, namely women, children and families," Turnbull said in a statement.

He also said the United States would assess the refugees and decide which ones would be resettled in America. He said the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was supporting the arrangement.

Worldwide, the United States accepted 84,994 refugees in fiscal year 2016 (Oct. 1, 2015-Sept. 30, 2016) out of a cap of 85,000, according to data from the State Departments Refugee Processing Center.

Obamas administration last year said it would raise the refugee admission ceiling to 110,000 in fiscal year 2017. But in his Jan. 27 executive order, Trump said the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal 2017 "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest."

Up to Jan. 27, the United States had admitted 32,125 refugees.

After extensive vetting, refugees arrive legally in the United States and are required by law to apply for a green card one year after their arrival.

The fate of the deal

The U.S.-Australian deal resurfaced after Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 27 temporarily halting the refugee admission program and the admission of nationals from seven countries -- Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen -- flagged by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds.

The White Houses official readout of the next days phone call simply states, "Both leaders emphasized the enduring strength and closeness of the U.S.-Australia relationship that is critical for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region and globally."

Turnbull told reporters on Jan. 30 that he and Trump had a "constructive" conversation, adding, "We also discussed the resettlement arrangement of refugees from Nauru and Manus, which had been entered into with the previous administration, and I thank President Trump for his commitment to honour that existing agreement."

The White House has given conflicting signals about the fate of the deal.

Sean Spicer, Trumps press secretary, said during a Jan. 31 press briefing that the deal to take in 1,250 refugees would go on, applying extreme vetting to potential arrivals as was agreed in the deal.

The day after Trumps tweet, Turnbull told the Wall Street Journal that Australia was still negotiating refugee agreements with other governments, but couldnt accept them given its laws banning the resettlement of asylum seekers coming by boat.

"Our expectation naturally, given the commitments that have been made, is that it will go ahead," Turnbull said. "The only option that isnt available to (the refugees) is bringing them to Australia for the obvious reasons that that would provide a signal to the people smugglers to get back into business."

Spicer, at a press briefing Feb. 2, said the president was "unbelievably disappointed" by the "horrible deal" cut by the Obama administration, but said the process would continue under "extreme vetting" conditions.

Given his opposition to the deal, Trump would be able to walk back on it, as it appears to be an executive-to-executive agreement, said Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School. "The new U.S. executive could back away from what Obama agreed to," Yale-Loehr said.

Our ruling

Trump tweeted, "The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia."

Trumps referring to a deal for the United States to take in 1,250 people -- mostly from Iran, Iraq and Somalia -- held by Australia in offshore detention centers. The detainees were caught at sea by Australian officials as they tried to illegally land on the island.

The United States is expected to vet the individuals and determine who will be accepted as refugees. Refugees arrive in the United States legally.

Trumps claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/e3995915-11af-4036-a175-903c2c7a4786

Read the rest here:
Trump claims Obama made deal to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia - PolitiFact

On Monday, a Republican lawmaker announced a bill that would allow victims of certain crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue politicians who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

As The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/30/crime-victims-sue-politicians-sanctuary-cities/ reports, the proposal targets sanctuary cities like Denver, Boulder and Aurora, where police and other officials have said they wont enforce federal immigration laws.

The proposal puts the Colorado legislature in the middle of the divisive national battle over immigration, following President Donald Trumps executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities and imposing a travel ban barring immigrants from several predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

It isnt clear what liability politics would have under the proposal but the bills author, Rep. Dave Williams, who is Hispanic, said it would give victims of crimes committed by people in the country illegally in sanctuary cities the right to file both civil and criminal complaints against politicians who support such policies.

View post:
Proposed bill would allow victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue politicians - HPPR

A draft plan, under discussion inside the Trump administration, promises to exclude would-be immigrants who might need public assistance and to deport, whenever possible, those already dependent on welfare.

The draft executive order, as written, illuminates one of the ways in which the Trump administration plans to deliver on campaign-trail promises to halt what candidate Trump repeatedly described as the intentional abuse of American social service programs. The effort, as described, appears to want to reduce immigrants impact on American taxpayers and the workforce. But there are just a few problems with Trumps draft order.

[Trump administration circulates more draft immigration restrictions, focusing on protecting U.S. jobs]

They begin with the facts.

The language in the order, as written, portraysimmigrants generally as a drain on the American taxpayer, and would direct the government to address the issue in several ways.The draft order would:

The order calls for lots of research too, including how the estimated $100 billion in savings the order says these activitieswould generate could be brought to bear on domestic poverty along with regular reports monitoring the number of immigrants blocked, reimbursements demanded and the status of monitoring efforts to stop immigrants from receiving public benefits.

[See the draft executive orders here]

But, almost none of the issues identified in the draft order exist as they are described in the order.

Immigration is complex. Citizenship status can change and, in many U.S. households, citizens and legal and illegal immigrants live together, making the rights and benefits available to them difficult to quantify or classify as aid to aliens. Long-standing U.S. law already makes it rare for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, such as cash payments. And, experts in immigration law and the nations public assistance programs say theres little data to support the administrations claim that immigrants disproportionately draw on public aid.

There are at least 5.1 million children living in the United States with a parent who is an unauthorized immigrant, according to an analysis published by the Migration Policy Institute in January 2016. More than 70 percent of these children are also U.S. citizens, eligible for a full slate of social service benefits as any other child in a family with a similar income. And immigrant children are more likely than others to live in low-income families. As many of those children are minors, they cannot simply be given control of the federal food or cash aid for which they qualify. The benefits have to be controlled by their parents, immigrants who are the heads of their households.

These families offer a helpful framework for thinking about any promise to surgically extract needy immigrants, saidTanya Broder, a senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

The reality is that immigrants and citizens live together, work together and inhabit the same communities and neighborhoods, said Broder, who specializes in policies affecting access to health care, public education and aid. For good reason, we want every baby to be born healthy, every young child to have basic nutrition and the people around us to be physically healthy enough to contribute to our economy. When you ignore that, the consequences can quickly become more costly in terms of human beings and taxpayer dollars than providing services in the first place.

Though the draft orders characterize a ban on immigrants receiving welfare as something new, or at least insufficiently enforced, some of what it lays out as proposals for new immigration and welfare policy already exists. And what the order depicts as poor enforcement is actually more like a long line of laws, legal decisions, rules and official guides for federal employees that have made public charge deportations rare.

[Donald Trumps false comments connecting Mexican immigrants and crime]

For more than 100 years, U.S. law has allowed federal officials to bar immigrants who, based on a specific formula, seem likely to need public assistance after arrival. That test is known as the public charge law. The law technically allows federal immigration authorities to deport immigrants who become public dependents within five years of their arrival and prevent legal immigrants from moving toward citizenship for the same reason.

Individuals living in the United States who want to help their relatives enter the country also are already required to sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that they earn enough money to support themselves and those hoping to immigrate. Anyone signing such an affidavit also agrees to pay back public assistance should their relatives receive it.

On top of that, in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, widely known as welfare reform. In addition to the lifetime limits for all welfare recipients, the law significantly restricted immigrant access to the U.S. social safety net.

It was definitely the biggest change in policy regarding immigrant access to means-tested benefits ever, saidRon Haskins, one of the chief architects of the welfare reform law and a Republican congressional committee staffer who worked with the Clinton administration on the matter. Today, Haskins is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where he co-directs the Center on Children and Families.

Those reforms barred illegal immigrants from many programs designed for the poor, saidAudrey Singer, a senior fellow in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She studies demographic change, immigration, global refugee movements and their municipal implications.

Much to the chagrin of many Republicans in Congress, some of these rules were scaled back during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, Haskins said. The reason for the rollbacks: Many Democrats were never fond of the specifics of the welfare reform law, Haskins said. Clinton was unsure, and just two cabinet members and advisers in the room with Clinton when he decided to sign the 1996 law thought the immigrant provisions should be included, Haskins said.

Politics wasnt the only driver. In the years that followed welfare reform, documented reports of abuses, inaccurate reads of the public charge law, exorbitant fines 33 times the value of benefits provided and other stories began to reach Washington, Broder said.

By 1999, administration officials clarified the public charge law so that participation in food aid programs, seeking help with medical care, job training, education or child care clearly could not be considered violations of the countrys prohibition on public dependency. Since 2002, immigrant children have been eligible for food aid during the five-year waiting period required for adults, and since 2009, states have had the option of providing health care coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women within their first years in the United States.

Still today, immigrant access to Social Security assistance is seldom granted, Singer said. Legal immigrants including green-card holders must navigate a mandatory five-year waiting period for eligibility in most aid programs. And, once on cash aid rolls, legal immigrants become subject to the same lifetime limits that apply to everyone else. Whats more, some immigrants never become eligible for cash aid, Medicaid or the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To do so they have to fit certain criteria and live in a certain states. Across the country, refugees people fleeing war, famine or persecution receive six months of assistance after they arrive in the U.S., then become ineligible for most aid for several years.

None of that adds up to a situation anything like that implied by Trumps draft executive order. Immigrants do not make up overwhelming majorities of those receiving public assistance.

Immigrant families are less likely to receive food benefits than other households, according an Urban Institute analysis of federal 2008 and 2009 SNAP data. The pattern held but the gap between immigrant and native-born families narrowed when it came to cash aid and public health insurance.

In poor families, about 18 percent of children with native-born parents received cash help Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 2008 and 2009, compared with about 12 percent of children with foreign-born parents, according to the study. Among children in poor families, 77 percent of those with U.S.-born parents and 69 percent of those with foreign-born parents had Medicaid or CHIP coverage.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture did not respond to a request for detailed data on the citizenship and national origin status of more recent or current SNAP (food stamps) recipients. A Department of Health and Human Services representative said the department does not have such data for Medicaid users. But an annual report on TANF recipients compiled by the agency suggests strongly that the inferences in Trumps draft order are not well founded.

In fiscal year 2015, 744,257 adults were enrolled in the cash assistance program along with about 2.37 million children who live with ineligible adults. That group of children includes some living with legal and illegal immigrant parents. But,noncitizens made up about 280,300 or just 9 percent of all the people receivingcashaid.

Read more:

No matter what you call it, Trumps immigration order will be tough to overturn, legal analysts say

Restaurants depend on immigrants. Trumps orders could hit them particularly hard.

Stephen Bannons apparent references to anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party dont seem so coincidental anymore

Read the rest here:
Trump draft executive order full of sound and fury on immigration, welfare and deportation - Washington Post