Pirate's Cove

Well, yeah. Anyone wanting to live in America from a foreign nation should be able to be self sufficient (also, why in the ever lovin’ f*ck to we have people living here as “permanent residents”? Very silly)

Immigrants using food stamps or Medicaid can now be denied green cards

Immigrants applying to live permanently in the United States can be rejected if they receive public benefits, beginning this week.

Use of Medicaid, food stamps, tuition assistance and free school lunch programs, among other government assistance, could all be grounds for denying a green-card application.

The policy from President Donald Trump’s administration, which took effect Friday, marks a dramatic change to a long-standing federal policy consistent with the president’s efforts to restrict legal immigration pathways.

The rule could reduce federal and state payments by $13 billion a year, by persuading some 950,000 people to disenroll from or avoid federal safety net programs, according to estimates from the Department of Homeland Security. The agency said that the rule aligns with Congress’s intent that noncitizens “in the United States be self-sufficient and not dependent on taxpayer-funded government benefits.”

That makes sense, right? Beyond the whole “why in the f*ck are there permanent residents?” People should be coming to apply for citizenship or be on temporary visas. People on visas or applying for citizenship have to show they can take care of themselves, that they will not be on government benefits.

“Aliens in the United States should be self-reliant,” a DHS policy document for the rule states, “and government benefits should not incentivize immigration.”

Applying for a green card, or legal permanent residency, is a necessary step for those seeking U.S. citizenship.

Yes, well, a goodly chunk apply and never go through with the whole process to be citizens. They just….reside. And use government programs.

This week, New York led 21 other states, the District of Columbia and several cities in suing the Trump administration over the new rule. The lawsuit argued that the rule fails “to consider many important aspects” of the problems it creates and warned that the harms will extend to mixed-status families and U.S. citizen children.

“Cruelty is the point,” New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said at a news conference announcing the lawsuit this week. “Having a chilling effect on immigrants is the point. Letting individuals know that they are not welcome here is the point.”

Well, then those states can pay for the lives of these people. Most nations around the world require that people moving to those countries be self sufficient. That they bring value. It is not uncommon for a person to have to meet a financial burden test when they want to move to a new country. Why does the US have to let every poor person in who brings nothing? This is the way it used to be a long time ago.

Read: Bummer: Green Card Applicants Can Be Denied For Using Government Benefits »

Seriously, the Supreme Court ruled back in 2025 that they were cool with it, so, really, when it makes it back to SCOTUS they will rule in favor

Appeals court says Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy is unlawful

The Trump administration’s policy on deporting immigrants to third countries is unlawful, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, a decision that could halt a program that has already sent thousands of people to countries that are not their own.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit unanimously agreed with a lower court judge’s decision in February that the Department of Homeland Security’s policy violates due process rights by failing to give migrants sufficient notice and a chance to raise fear-based claims to contest their deportations to third countries.

The appeals court’s decision marks a major setback for the administration, which has sought to establish third-country deportations as a key part of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign. Since Trump took office last year, DHS has sent more than 25,000 migrants to third countries, mostly in Latin America and Africa, according to public records. The program has raised fierce objections from congressional Democrats and legal challenges from human rights advocates who say the deportees face dangerous conditions and inhumane treatment in the countries where they are being sent.

Maybe just let us repatriate them to their home countries? Or, they can choose where they want to go, and we’ll put them on a plane.

Legal experts said the administration is likely to appeal to the Supreme Court and seek a stay on the 1st Circuit’s decision that would allow DHS to continue sending migrants to third countries. For now, however, the deportation flights should be immediately grounded, said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, who was among the team of attorneys who brought the class-action case.

“This is a huge win,” she said. “All those deportation flights should not be taking off because the policy under which people got put on planes and targeted for removal is unlawful.”

Blah Blah Blah. Let’s not forget that Trump has won almost every immigration case when it hit the Supreme Court.

Read: Wacko Appeals Court Rules Against 3rd Country Deportations »