New York Post - 13.08.2019

New York Post, Tuesday, August 13, 2019

nypost.com

19

POSTOPINION

L

AST week’s mass shooting

in El Paso, Texas, has sent

public discourse about

immigration off the rails.

It has allowed radicals to frame

as racist normal law-enforce-

ment activities and immigration

rules. We saw this in New York

recently, with anti-ICE protesters

stopping traffic on the West Side

Highway and holding sit-ins at an

Amazon store to protest the

company’s compliance with

immigration rules.

In the left’s telling — and it’s in-

creasingly hard to distinguish the

hard left from the soft — the

administration and those who

support it are no better than the

insane white-nationalist who

committed the El Paso atrocity.

Similar hysteria has greeted a

new Trump administration reg-

ulation governing legal immi-

grants’ access to public welfare.

The New York Times depicted

the new rule as part of an effort

by President Trump and his

hard-line immigration adviser,

Stephen Miller, to “shift” the

demographic makeup of new-

comers to the country.

Under the new rule, those who

are in the coun-

try legally will

have a more dif-

ficult time ob-

taining green

cards or gaining

citizenship if

they received food stamps, hous-

ing assistance, Medicare or

other public benefits.

But the outrage about this

rule, which is set to go into ef-

fect in 60 days, is overblown.

Even in the era of mass immi-

gration in the 19th and early

20th centuries, those who came

here had to promise not to be-

come a “public charge” upon

the United States.

That meant immigrants

pledged to work and/or could

look to sponsors who would

guarantee their support.

The idea of restricting immi-

gration to those who could

work is an old one. The federal

Immigration Act of 1882 was the

first US law to specifically insist

that immigrants who couldn’t

take care of themselves would

be excluded.

That “public-charge” princi-

ple has been part of every sub-

sequent federal statute on the

subject. The landmark 1965 Im-

migration and Nationality Act

liberalized the system, but it

nevertheless allowed for the de-

portation of immigrants who

became public charges within

five years.

Moreover, far from being a

Trump innovation, the likeli-

hood of needing government as-

sistance is already grounds to

deny an immigrant a green card

or citizenship.

What is dif-

ferent is that

this rule broad-

ens the defini-

tion of a public

charge. Instead

of being defined as receiving

welfare payments, it will now

also include the myriad benefits

available under the ever-ex-

panding welfare state that exists

in the 21st century.

Critics complain that this will

discourage legal immigrants

from seeking assistance that

they might need. But the Trump

administration wants to shift

our immigration system to one

based on merit, like the ones

that reign in Canada and many

European countries.

As with every other debate,

however, liberals are turning this

into a question of race and iden-

tity. Trump, they argue, wants to

make it harder for immigrants

from non-white countries.

But the story of immigration

to the United States has always

been about people of every race,

color and creed who come here

to work and take advantage of

American freedoms and oppor-

tunity — not a desire to take ad-

vantage of the welfare state.

This isn’t about race, Trump’s

irresponsible comments about

wanting people from Norway

and not s- -thole countries not-

withstanding.

Even if you don’t share admin-

istration hard-liners’ desire to

cut back legal immigration,

emphasizing merit is a com-

mon-sense concern that is sup-

ported by most Americans. Our

culture is rooted in self-suffi-

ciency and individual initiative.

Our immigration system should

reflect our national creed.

The devil is in the details in a

regulation that is a staggering

837 pages long and that lists fac-

tors that will either negatively

or positively affect the deci-

sions of officials about granting

green cards and eligibility for

citizenship. It should be en-

forced in such a way that will

not penalize those who came

here to work and fell on hard

times for reasons not of their

own making.

It isn’t surprising that those who

advocate open borders and wish

to abolish ICE would also oppose

public-charge laws. But it ill

behooves those who claim to

champion the rights of immi-

grants to take a stand that essen-

tially demands that Americans go

along with prioritizing the needs

of newcomers.

To maintain America’s pro-

immigration consensus, immi-

gration must be seen as about

opportunity — not welfarism.

Jonathan Tobin is editor in

chief of JNS.org and a contribu-

tor to National Review.

Twitter at: @JonathanS_Tobin.

Bootstrap Nation

It’s not racist to keep migrants off the dole

JonathanS.

tobin

Passport to aspiration: Team Trump would make it harder to get green

cards if immigrants can’t pay their own way in their new home.

Getty Images/fStop

2020 watch: Three Ominous Signs for Trump

Three big developments last week could hurt President Trump’s re-elec-

tion chances, warns Bloomberg’s Joshua Green. The president’s reluctance

on gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings could “exacerbate col-

lapsing Republican support” in the suburbs. Then there are his tariffs. He

“owes much of his electoral victory to his strength in farm states,” but

many there are reeling from Chinese retaliation. Finally, Trump vowed to

“foster a Rust Belt renaissance,” but his Chinese talks have “backfired”:

Beijing’s move to weaken its currency will “reduce Chinese demand for

US goods and impose further economic stress on states Trump needs to

help.” In short, Trump has alienated “farmers, suburbanites and Upper

Midwest voters” — three crucial groups he needs to win.

Culture critic: The Wrong Film for Our Times

Madeline Fry at The Washington Examiner finds it hard to “imagine a

worse film for our current political climate” than “The Hunt,” which “pits

liberals and conservatives against each other in a violent, ‘Hunger

Games’-esque encounter.” The film’s release was indefinitely canceled af-

ter the El Paso and Dayton shootings as well as criticism by President

Trump and some of his supporters. True, it’s not the “anti-GOP screed” the

Trump folks think it is, and it wouldn’t be “a major contributor to gun vio-

lence.” And if those are the reason its opening was canceled, Universal

should “release the film later.” Still, it’s unlikely the film’s “brand of satire

would really end up with any positive results.” And frankly, asks Fry, is this

“really the film we need right now?”

Conservative: Epstein Got the Demise He Deserved

The terror Jeffrey Epstein must have felt in his final hours on earth was

“a punishment more brutal than any justice system can give out,” ob-

serves The Federalist’s David Marcus. When a federal judge denied him

bail, “he had no more calls to make, no more chips to cash in, no way off

the hook.” Thus there was “a poetic justice to Ep-

stein’s demise, notwithstanding the frustration of

losing whatever secrets were stored in his demented

mind.” After all, “this was a man who imprisoned

young girls and made them feel powerless, who con-

vinced them that they could not fight back. But, sud-

denly, he was the prisoner; suddenly, he was the one

with no means to fight back.” Concludes Marcus:

“We can take some measure of comfort that in those

final moments of his life, he was made to see the

monster he was, that he looked, perhaps for the first

time, into a mirror in his mind that could no longer

hide his evil blemishes.”

Neocon: Anti-Israel ABCs at California Schools

At The Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo reports that “the Califor-

nia Department of Education is facing backlash after permitting a host of

anti-Israel activists to build a statewide educational curriculum that de-

monizes the Jewish state.” The new lessons — which frame Israel as part

of “interlocking systems of oppression” and endorse the campaign to boy-

cott the Jewish state — are “the result of an effort by several leading edu-

cators who have expressed both anti-Israel and anti-Semitic viewpoints.”

Among these is Samia Shoman, a Palestinian-American teacher in San

Mateo whose “lesson plans on Palestinian history have been featured as a

teaching tool by the Qatar Foundation International.” As one activist told

Kredo, “this is an attempt to make anti-Semitism institutional.”

Parent activist: Schools Railroad Gender-Confused Kids

In April 2016, Jay Keck’s daughter, then 14, resolved that she was a boy.

As he recounts in USA Today, “in my attempt to help her, her public

school undermined me every step of the way.” The girl, who is on the au-

tism spectrum, had exhibited no discomfort with her biological sex until

she was approached by a classmate “who had recently come out at school

as transgender.” Thereafter, the school only “affirmed her,” by “referring

to her with her new name,” by “using male pronouns” and “giving her ac-

cess to a gender neutral restroom” — all over the Kecks’ objections. Four

years later, the girl “is more convinced than ever that she is a boy, and that

testosterone may be necessary for her to become her authentic self.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Jeffrey Epstein