Dear Editor,
On August 13th, SN (`New Trump rule targets the poor and could cut legal immigration in half, advocates say’) reported on this latest announcement from the White House. I think the newspaper sold what it bought without having an in-depth appreciation for what is the reality. I seek to assist.
First, I find very little in terms of policy (or conduct) with which to agree with the man in the White House. Second, I strongly believe that his immigration visions and related drives are tailored to appease a rabid and raucous nativist base that see little utility in the presence of foreigners in general, and coloured ones in particular. Still, with this being said, I now move to clear the air on what pertains relative to that 837-page rule change so bandied about, if not ominously brandished, in this locale.
Much has been made about new immigrants being made to stand on their own feet. To the greatest extent, that is what they themselves seek: the independence of self-sufficiency; the dignity of taking care of needs (and more than a few wants); the pride and joy in having made it, so to speak. That is what they have always pursued: standing on their own two feet, and as quickly as possible. No burden on anyone, including family; no dependence on government, revulsion at the stigma of a handout from any source. I should know. I know of countless others. And I, also, know of the few, who game the system to their advantage. The majority are not (repeat: not minorities) not mainly newly arrived immigrants. They are homegrown and known to be other generations of Americans.
But to cut closer to the bone, this business and alarm-indeed, scaremongering-about income is inaccurate and misleading. It irresponsibly instils fear, when there is little ground for any of that presently. After all, 837 pages of rules and changes are going to have some granularity that may surprise unpleasantly. As more come to light clarity will come. I say all of this because the income check, very specifically, an income test, is a mandatory part of every package of papers required and submitted for consideration for a permanent resident (“green card”) visa and status. That has not changed.
It has been that way the many decades ago when I was part of that process. It was still there a few short years ago, when providing supporting documentation about means of support for applying family members. Documents relative to the poverty line, employment offers, documented means of support (income, financials of those committing to affidavits) were and are still integral components of the review process, and those have not changed. Again, I should know as, at one time or another, I have either guided or made such attestations, with the same standards and requirements operative.
To date, I did not read nor hear of anything about changes to the poverty measurement; or the abandonment of means of support for the prospective immigrant hopeful. In fact, the New York Times article dated August 12th and titled, “Trump favors wealthier immigrants for green cards”, noted that, “An immigrant who speaks English, show formal letters of support, and has private health insurance would be more likely to be approved than someone whose financial situation suggests that they would probably need housing vouchers or enroll in Medicaid in the future if they were given a green card.” Other than that requirement of “private health insurance” all the other elements have been in place for a very long time. And I foresee that relatives stepping forward to fulfill through Affidavits of Support that that, too, is covered. Also, the old affidavits committed the sponsor to be responsible for 40 quarters (10 years) for the new immigrant; today, I hear something about 36 months.
Further, the condition that immigrants show “income equal to or greater than 250 percent of the official poverty line -about $64,000 for a family of four” was to some extent already in place. Those would be the well-heeled (entrepreneurs, old-line capital) applicants, who self-sponsor or commit to establishing a business and employing a specific number of resident workers.
I will agree with any position, which postulates that there is a hard inclination to lessen the non-English speaking and non-European flow of the incoming; that emphasis, no matter how unstated is, correspondingly, to favour a more Nordic concentration; and that more hardline immigration officials will weed out many deserving qualified poor -meaning on the basis of borderline or questionable judgement calls.
For references to bias and preferences once granted, I suggest the lottery introduced a while back, by the late Sen. Kennedy, that give an early and unfair heavy advantage to his Irish (European) brethren; the diversity provision was only attached to make it palatable and passable. And regarding, higher education and higher incomes, I must ask: what was/is the HB-1 visa, if not a bow to those pillars?
The way I see matters is that the biggest, long-term departure from existing immigration laws is going to come from repudiation of the chain migration provision. Thus, as I absorb the new immigration announcement, I interpret it (from personal experience) to incorporate much of what was there before, and successfully explored by poor multitudes to share in the American Dream. Those avenues remain.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
