From Draft Executive Order dated 1/23/2017:

…DHS and State Department to establish new standards and regulations for determining when aliens will become subject to the “public charge” grounds of inadmissibility and deportability (i.e., their likelihood of requiring public assistance after being admitted into the United States);

First, they came for the visa holders from seven countries (and tried to come for the green card holders); then they came for legal immigrants…

I do wonder how the Trump Administration would implement the statistical tests for determining likelihood of meeting the criteria for deportability.

Read two draft executive orders here.

34 thoughts on ““Deportability”

  1. c thomson

    so do we take anyone who turns up claiming persecution or no job at home?

    or do we have more or less rational criteria for selection?

    if we use rational criteria, should economic competence be included? – such as asking: can this person do something over and above stacking at Walmart?

    1. mg_13

      @ c thomson,

      You ask good questions, and I think those are fine thinks to talk about when crafting an immigration policy. However, this isn’t about who we WILL let in. It’s about how we treat people that we’ve ALREADY agreed to let in. Thus, the decision to let in people who are likely to go on the public dole or might be disabled or need assistance might be a questionable one. However, it seems particularly cruel and vindictive to go back and reassess or deport people we’ve ALREADY accepted. I see it as a reneg. Pres. Trump is fine with renegging because that’s how he’s run pretty much all of his businesses, using the bankruptcy courts as an active business tactic, not as a measure of last resort. Not a good way to run any part of society. Sad.

  2. PeakTrader

    Let’s face it, the Democrat party needs tens of millions of dirt poor foreigners and their children to vote for them.

    Saturating the country with poor people creates more dependency on government means tested programs, which have exploded, allows a bigger government, and facilitates greater income redistribution.

    We should’ve enforced our immigration laws, had strict quotas on poor immigration, and used our limited resources to help poor American citizens, particularly blacks.

    The Democrat party can use more moderates and fewer liberals to help make America great again.

    1. baffling

      because we already have too many overpaid whiney baby boomers who collected outsized paychecks versus their economic contributions during the financial crisis, gamed medicare and social security to cash out far more than they paid in, gamed pension plans to pay out based on those last few outsized income years, complain because interest rates are not high enough to support their early retirement, and squash future retirees benefits so that the boomers do not have to take a cut today. right. we need more of this in our population.

      1. PeakTrader

        What do you have against the Baby-Boomers, who gave us the biggest economic boom, since the Industrial Revolution?

        I agree, politicians, in both parties, have been playing financial games to get votes.

        1. Mike V

          No, the baby-boomer’s parents gave us the boom by investing in them.

          Once the baby boomers grew up and took leadership positions, they gave themselves never-ending tax cuts (unpaid for), bloated defense budgets (unpaid for), expanded entitlement programs for the elderly (unpaid for).

          Meanwhile, they actively ignored the rapid growth of costs for healthcare, education, and daycare which are probably the most important things for low/middle income people. The unaffordability of these things probably reduced the standard of living for a huge percentage of people for a generation.

          1. PeakTrader

            So, the Baby-Boomers get no credit for actually producing an economic boom and the Information Revolution.

            And, politicians get no blame for micromanaging entire industries, including health care and education, into massive inefficiencies.

            Why blame politicians for cutting taxes and boosting spending, along with overregulating, when you can blame the private sector or the free market.

        2. baffling

          “What do you have against the Baby-Boomers, who gave us the biggest economic boom, since the Industrial Revolution?”

          boomers have overextended the social safety net of social security and medicare. why are we only looking to reduce benefits for those retiring after the boomer generation?

          boomers were the product of the greatest generation, a group who gave their lives to make this country great. exactly what sacrifices did the boomers give? I recall trump describing his sacrifices-working hard to make lots of money. oh what sacrifice.

          the boomer entitlement mentality appears every time the issue of cutting retirement benefits to everybody arises. it becomes important to reduce benefits, just not benefits to current retirees (i.e. boomers).

          actually, many babyboomers are on my good side. my issue is with the (not so few) number of boomers who take this entitled approach to their retirement and life. peak, you seem to fall into this category.

    2. Mike V

      Per usual, your comment has an ugly tone and is generally fact-free. Immigration has a high return-on-investment. And, the immigrant population has grown at a slower rate in the last 5 years than it has since the 1970s.

      Immigrants are more likely to start a business than native born: https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-are-immigrants-more-entrepreneurial

      Immigrants are less likely to be criminals: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798

      Poor immigrants use less public services than poor native people: https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

      Other myths, which I’m sure you firmly believe, here: http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

      1. PeakTrader

        How is stating facts an “ugly tone?”

        How many dirt poor people, with very little education and very few assets, do you want in the U.S.?

        There may be more than a billion people who prefer to live in the U.S..

        Perhaps, they should make their countries more like the U.S. instead.

        1. Mike V

          That’s irrelevant. Your point was that our current immigrant population and the people we naturalize today are a “dirt-poor” drain on society (an ugly, condescending way of phrasing, to be sure). But, if you look at the actual data, you would accept that this is a false caricature of the U.S. immigrant population.

          Do you know any Italian people whose families emigrated in the late 1800s or early 1900s? What about Polish or Irish? There is a very high probability that they were “dirt poor” when they arrived.

          1. PeakTrader

            Over a hundred years ago, immigrants had the same skill level as the domestic population.

            Too many immigrants with lower skills than the domestic population has some undesirable effects.

  3. Kevin O'Neill

    As a native american I’m completely in favor of deporting anyone whose family hasn’t been here for 500 years or more.

    As an american I recognize this country was built on immigration. It was also built on religious non-discrimination; as an ideal if not an always practiced.

    I also recognize the ‘Muslim ban’ was targeted at countries that have had virtually nothing to do with domestic terror; that it was targeted at a specific religious group; that it has damaging consequences far beyond its intent – especially for hospitals and universities.

    Those who favor this type of approach should also be in favor of tearing down the Statue of Liberty. Perhaps we can reuse the construction materials to help build that wall between us and Mexico – or between us and Canada as Scott Walker wants.

    1. Rick Stryker


      You don’t understand the facts and circumstances around Trump’s EO at all. Not surprising when you consider what a laughably poor job the news media does reporting on this.

  4. Rick Stryker


    This issue has nothing to do with statistical tests. This potential order is about modifying regulations, in this case Clinton-era regulations. You have to understand immigration law to appreciate what’s going on here. Fortunately, I have a joint appointment in the School of Conservative Law at Wossamotta University.

    Contrary to what mixed up newspapers such as the Washington Post imply, the Trump Administration is not proposing a new policy to weed out potential immigrants who may come to rely on public assistance or to deport those who come to rely on public assistance. That policy has already exists in US law.

    Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows a consular officer to refuse admission to anyone who is likely to become a public charge and lays out general criteria to be considered. Section 237(a)(5) codifies the conditions under which you can be deported if you do become a public charge. What is this proposed order about then?

    In 1999, the Clinton Justice Department promulgated new rules and a field manual for what could be considered in the public charge analysis. Most people who don’t know the details of this subject are surprised to learn that the Clinton Administration ruled out consideration of a large number of assistance programs such as food stamps in determining whether someone is likely to become or in fact is a public charge.

    The effects of the Clinton-era rule are clear in Figure 5 of this Congressional Research Service report. The share of exclusions based on likelihood of becoming a public charge began to decline after 1999, becoming a small fraction of total exclusions during the Obama years.

    This order proposes to change the field manual to include many of the assistance programs that are not excluded under the current Clinton-era rules. That’s all it is. No one is proposing to do unit root tests.

    We can and should debate whether this is a good idea or not. But we first have to be clear what the proposal is and its motivation.

    1. Rick Stryker

      Sorry, there is a typo in the link above; plus, I linked to an earlier Congressional Research Service report. In the earlier report I linked to, it would be Figure 13, not Figure 5. The updated data is Figure 15 in the CRS report titled “U.S. Immigration Policy: Chart Book of Key Trends” dated March 14, 2016.

    2. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Rick Stryker: What part of the first sentence quoted from the Draft Executive Order:

      …DHS and State Department to establish new standards and regulations…

      do you not understand? I’m pretty sure English is my first language; is it yours?

      1. Rick Stryker


        That phrase is completely consistent with what I’m saying. They are proposing to replace the current rules with updated rules. Look at section 3(a). They are planning to rescind the Clinton-era field guide that I linked to and replace it with a new one. And they are going to propose a rule that extends the definition of public benefits to include programs that the Clinton 1999 rule excluded. What Clinton did in 1999 was always controversial among conservatives. The proposed Trump order is just reversing that.

  5. Not Trampis

    Mr Stryker ,

    These new regulations that came out of the chaoshouse were aimed at keeping out ‘terrorists’ . only one problem. No evidence to support this at all. Terrorists there days are home grown whom are recruited by stupisd stunts like this. Is ISIS giving Trump a retainer for this great gift of recruiting.

    if you yanks vote in an incompetent you get incompetent policy.

    1. Rick Stryker

      Not Trampis,

      Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that there is no evidence, other than you didn’t find any supportive arguments in the NY Times or WaPo?

      1. Not Trampis

        a University of Chicago study recently released. mind you if you knew anyone in national security they have known for for yonks. They do not deal with fake news. This is how ISIS is far different to Al Qaeda.

        Being from OZ I read neither paper

    2. PeakTrader

      That’s a false narrative. The temporary ban on seven countries won’t turn Muslims into terrorists. We’re at war and protecting the homeland is part of the war. Obviously, you want to continue the appeasement policy, which gave rise to ISIS and massive destruction, in the Middle East, Western Europe, and elsewhere.

      1. baffling

        “Obviously, you want to continue the appeasement policy”
        peak, the country with the most direct ties to terrorism on US soil, which we are trying to protect against, is saudi arabia from 9/11. why are they not on the list? turkey would also be a threat, considering its issues with EU immigration. why are they not on the list? appeasement policy?

          1. baffling

            and trump barred them from entering the country. don’t blame obama for trumps behavior.

            people are asking, why not egypt and turkey? i hear people talking about the great business ventures trump has in egypt and turkey. not saying he left those countries off the list because of his business ventures, but people are asking the question. lots of people are asking the question. it seems pretty suspicious. especially when mr trump will not provide any details on his business ventures around the world. makes you wonder what and whom he is protecting. lots of people, smart people, great people, from all over the country. in fact from all over the world. they are asking the question of trump’s action and choice of nations. and if its benefiting him directly. i have some people in saudi right now, looking into some of these claims. you cannot imagine what they are finding. very explosive facts coming to light. very explosive. doesn’t look good.

  6. 2slugbaits

    A couple of comments. First, it should be obvious to everyone that PeakTrader has become increasingly racist and bigoted over the last few months. This was something that many of us were concerned about with a Trump win. Things that respectable people never used to dare say have suddenly become okay.
    Second, the draft executive bases its recommendations on some very shaky economic reasoning. There is very, very little evidence that immigrants are a net drain on economic growth. To the extent that there is a drain it is very short term. This reminds me of the mistaken view in Britain that NHS was under attack because of undeserving immigrants. If Team Trump is really concerned about unproductive members of society, then why not deport all of those white Christian (???) retirees who voted for him? The fact that they were born here is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not they are economic drags on society. Executive orders like this are really just part of the fascist fantasies of Steve Bannon. I half expect the Marine guards at the WH to start wearing Teutonic Knight armor…only just a little subtler than white robes.

    1. PeakTrader

      2slugbaits, I didn’t know poor foreigners are a race. I’ve stated before, the country needs more skilled foreigners and fewer unskilled foreigners. It doesn’t matter to me what race they are. You’re the one obsessed with race. Your indifference to poor American citizens, whites and minorities, particularly blacks, shows you’re the (elitist) bigot.

Comments are closed.