Trump draft executive order targets immigrants on public assistance


A draft plan, under discussion inside the Trump administration, promises to exclude would-be immigrants who might need public assistance and to deport, whenever possible, those already dependent on welfare.

The draft executive order, as written, illuminates one of the ways in which the Trump administration plans to deliver on campaign-trail promises to halt what candidate Trump repeatedly described as the intentional abuse of American social service programs. The effort, as described, appears to want to reduce immigrants’ impact on American taxpayers and the workforce.

The language in the order, as written, portrays immigrants generally as a drain on the American taxpayer, and would direct the government to address the issue in several ways.

The draft order would:

1) Direct various federal agencies to more strictly identify and exclude potential immigrants likely to need certain types of public aid and deport those already in the United States who have had to rely on social services help.

2) Command federal officials to determine how much the federal government could save — it specifically suggests a savings of $100 billion — if immigrants were limited to getting “only the public benefits that they are eligible to receive.”

3) Compel federal officials to demand reimbursement from people inside the United States who made legal promises to support immigrant relatives, if necessary.

4) Require social service agencies to report immigrant benefit recipients to federal authorities.


  • Turning the entire civil service into his personal hate machine.
  • The story was broken by the Washington Post, a left leaning media outlet that has admitted several times in the past few years of running stories that have no facts foundation.
  • Its a draft. And another thing it mentions green card and visa holders and no need to worry my fellow Micronesians because we micros don't need green card or visas to enter or work in the U.S if you a Filipino or Asian or from the mid east then or concerns you.
  • The Trump administration is considering two executive orders to restrict immigration, taking aim at immigrant workers and those likely to depend on public assistance, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

    The White House would not comment for the Post's story, and it's unclear if Trump will act on the documents or how they may change.

    The first draft is a plan to screen out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance.

    The measure also seeks to deport — when possible — immigrants already present in the U.S. who are dependent on taxpayer aid.

  • He may deport other immigrants but COFA migrants I can bet you he won't. Take it to the bank. COFA migrants are residence nonimmigrants and are assured under the law/COFA to qualify for say public assistance. He can ratify to COFA to exclude COFA migrants from having public assistance but to deport nah he won't.
  • FSM citizens who are already on public assistance should start worrying what to do when they get cutoff from public housing and food stamps!
  • Hahaha nice one Garim
  • The U.S constitution is indeed a remarkable gift. Trump can write whatever exec order he sees fit...check and balance among the three branches and the people still rule!!
    COFA already spelled out what U.S deems are deportable offenses. We are peanuts on the national scale wt respect to welfare share or alleged abuse.

    Our job as COFA citizens is to be as productive and civil as much as possible. Be involved in our host cities, states. Be strong contributor to communities where we reside. Dont commit deportable crimes and keep you docs current.
  • edited February 2017
    "The U.S constitution is indeed a remarkable gift. Trump can write whatever exec order he sees fit."

    @SakaSaka, Go back to school pwipwi the president don't make laws he enforce them. Judiciary makes laws. Nice try with that fear mongering BS. What he is doing is within the laws and that law he is enforcing has been there before he got to the white house. Nice try.
  • The judiciary branch only interpret law; Congress make law!
  • Yes, the president can write an EO while the Judiciary Branch can not make laws! So who needs to go back to school?
  • In the U.S. system of constitutional government, the judicial branch decides whether or not a law, or an executive order, or an executive enforcement action violates the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has the final say.
  • edited February 2017
    Greg Jarrett: Trump's opponents will lose in the long run

    President Trump may have lost the early legal skirmishes over his executive order on immigration, but in the end he will likely win.

    The overwhelming weight of history and the law is on his side. The president does have the authority to ban the entry of foreigners, as long as he has what is called a “rational basis” to believe they pose a threat to the nation’s security. He does, and his order is designed to accomplish precisely that.

    The seven nations targeted by Trump in his immigration ban were originally identified in an anti-terrorism law signed by President Obama. Unlike other Muslim-majority nations that have a history of terrorism, these seven countries do not assist the U.S. in providing background checks and other vetting of immigrant applicants. Thus, it is not only “rational” to deny entry, it is imperative for the safety of Americans. The U.S. does not have the resources to properly vet all these individuals on its own.

    Shortly after the executive order was put in place, several federal court judges issued temporary restraining orders. Most of those TROs halted the detention and deportation of foreigners who had already been issued legal immigration visas. Many had already arrived in the U.S.
  • edited February 2017
    The ruling in Seattle by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart was different and far more expansive. He issued a temporary hold on the immigration ban nationwide. Lawyers at the Department of Justice appealed to the 9th Circuit which refused to overturn Judge Robart’s ruling, although further briefs have been filed. Thereafter, the 9th Circuit could revisit its decision.

    It is no surprise that the 9th Circuit got it wrong. It is the most overturned appellate court in the nation. There’s a joke among California lawyers: if you lose your case in the 9th Circuit, you’re assured of winning it before the Supreme Court. Get the picture?

    Nevertheless, the Seattle ruling is the case to watch, in part because Washington became the first state to sue. Take a look at judge Robart’s decision. It is largely devoid of any legal reasoning or sound analysis. Its brevity is exceeded only by its lack of logic as applied to the law.

    Absence of Standing to Sue

    Washington State does not have “standing” to sue on behalf of its residents because they have suffered no "actual harm" from Trump's order.

    In order to sustain a lawsuit, the plaintiffs must demonstrate their alleged injury is direct and real, not merely hypothetical. The harm must be imminent and irreparable, not speculative.

    So how have Washington residents been harmed? Lawyers for the state suggest their economy will be adversely impacted because the ban may prevent immigrants from working for Washington-based companies. Taxes might be reduced and its education system could be affected.

    However, all of that is pure conjecture. It might happen, but it might not. Hence, it does not constitute immediate “actual harm.” On that basis alone, the lawsuit should be dismissed.
  • edited February 2017
    Foreigners Do Not Enjoy Constitutional Rights

    The vast majority of people affected by President Trump’s executive order are people who do not have legally valid immigration visas but are seeking entry to the United States by undertaking the lengthy application process. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.

    The claim by Washington State that the immigration ban violates the First Amendment (freedom of religion) or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection clause) may seem, at first blush, like a reasonable argument. Until you consider that our Constitution applies only to citizens and those on American soil.

    A man in Somalia may wish to invoke our Constitution to claim his freedom of religion is being infringed, but until he arrives here he enjoys none of its privileges and protections. He has no right to assert discrimination, religious or otherwise. And the state of Washington has no legal right to represent him in court. It can only represent its own residents.

    The President Has Authority to Dictate Immigration

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate immigration. In 1952, Congress passed a law empowering the president to deny entry into the U.S. to “any class of aliens” considered to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” In other words, a threat to America and in the interests of national security.
  • Like I said that law has been there for decades and has been enacted by past presidents. And where were these lawyers when Obama singled out these same 7 countries and exercise his executive power to enforced this same law? The media over hyped the issue then it really is. Its no secret they don't like Trump. Why? He doesn't kowtow to them and doesn't play their games. The media has become too political and it was appearent in the last election when they throw in their flag behind Hillary. Hillary lost and boom here we are. Fighting over some guy somewhere in syria-Iran-Iraq-Afghanistan- Somalia who does not have rights until he is here but he is 8,000 miles away claiming his rights under the US constitution are being violated and we forget he is 8,000 miles away. Under the liberals argument any person around the world can claim US protections under the constitution without even being born here or having American citizenship. Liberalism is a man that gives away something he doesn't have.
Sign In or Register to comment.