Home | About | Donate

The Leaked Rule That Could Ban Immigrants Based on Income, Explained by Experts

The Leaked Rule That Could Ban Immigrants Based on Income, Explained by Experts

Rebecca Vallas

Earlier this month, leaked documents revealed that the Trump administration is preparing new rules that would effectively end the United States’ family-based immigration system. If implemented, the regulation would prevent low-income and working-class immigrants from entering the country by denying legal status to immigrants considered “likely” to become a so-called “public charge.”

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

–Emma Lazarus

(Engraved on a bronze plaque mounted inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty)

What’s the issue? Many countries limit immigration to those who they believe will have a net positive impact on the country. Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Denmark, Australia, the UK, among others employ a point factor system, making it easy for young people with skills to immigrate.

Why would a country not want to encourage those who can make the greatest contributions (and impose the least burden) to come to it?


Another example of the highest bidder, race to the bottom mentality prevailing.

Perhaps you should visit Liberty Island, and read the words inscribed on the statue’s base.

Too late.  There’s a “SOLD OUT” sign pasted over the plaque . . .

Yeah, but he is correct, that is not what it says. Additionally, it is not 1903 any more. We need to have learned something from this and make immigration more functional because it cannot meet the needs of the people it is designed to serve. And, no I’m not advocating for just rich people that is not going to work either.

i see nothing wrong with people advocating for themselves, but a hundred years from now I don’t want hear the arguments about this decision either. I think the key word here is “opportunity” and making preemptive decisions about who would benefit from “opportunity” is a bit misguided.

They were reflective of another age. Those words barely mattered when passed:

  1. 1882 - Chinese Exclusion Act, banning of immigration of infectious disease carriers
  2. 1901 - Anarchist Exclusion Act
  3. 1907 - "Gentlemen’s agreement - banning Japanese
  4. 1921 - Emergency Quota Act - basically shutting down

The Open Age of immigration hasn’t been the norm for a long time, until Teddy Kennedy foisted immigration “reform” on us in the 60’s, with the hysterical lie "“the bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Nope, Uncle Teddy would never, ever tell a fib…

1 Like

As someone else mentioned, similar to other countries, immigration should be limited to people with certain skills, education and / or net worth / income. The idea is to strengthen your country.