Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Incentives explain outcomes. Milton Friedman observed that you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. America’s earlier waves of immigration succeeded so well because, prior to 1914, the country maintained open borders without a welfare system. Immigrants arrived to work, support themselves and their families, and build... new lives. Those who couldn’t succeed typically returned home. This environment naturally selected for self-reliant individuals and fueled tremendous economic growth. In contrast, today’s expansive welfare state, offering healthcare, education, housing assistance, and cash transfers, fundamentally alters the incentives. When immigrants, whether legal or illegal, can immediately access these benefits, it becomes possible for some to arrive and function as net fiscal drains rather than contributors. Friedman therefore opposed the unsustainable pairing of open borders with generous entitlements. So it’s not paradoxical why one would support pre-1914 immigration but oppose its later version. They are very different phenomena. Either can work on its own, but together they generate higher taxes, social friction, and long-term strain.show more

Rothmus 🏴

673,890 subscribers

28,630 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Milton Friedman put it bluntly: 'You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. He explained why America's early open borders thrived—not from softness, but because immigrants came to work and contribute in a system with almost no welfare safety net pulling them in. Fast-forward to today: You can welcome people for jobs and opportunities... OR maintain a generous welfare state that offers benefits to all comers. But both at once? The incentives break down. Wages for low-skilled workers are pressured, public resources are strained, social trust erodes, and political backlash becomes predictable. This isn't about fear or prejudice, it's pure economics: math, human behavior, and historical reality. Friedman saw it coming. The contradiction hasn't gone away; it's only gotten louder. What do you think—should we prioritize open jobs or a robust welfare system... or is there a realistic way to have both? Drop your take below! 👇

Milton Friedman put it bluntly: 'You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. He explained why America's early open borders thrived—not from softness, but because immigrants came to work and contribute in a system with almost no welfare safety net pulling them in. Fast-forward to today: You can welcome people for jobs and opportunities... OR maintain a generous welfare state that offers benefits to all comers. But both at once? The incentives break down. Wages for low-skilled workers are pressured, public resources are strained, social trust erodes, and political backlash becomes predictable. This isn't about fear or prejudice, it's pure economics: math, human behavior, and historical reality. Friedman saw it coming. The contradiction hasn't gone away; it's only gotten louder. What do you think—should we prioritize open jobs or a robust welfare system... or is there a realistic way to have both? Drop your take below! 👇

𝐃𝐔𝐓𝐂𝐇

69,187 views • 7 months ago

Immigration used to be a working-class issue. Workers saw it as competition for jobs, housing, hospital beds, and every other government benefit. Milton Friedman said it plainly: you cannot have open immigration and a welfare state. The welfare state turns into a magnet, pulling more people into a government system where the pie is fixed. Every new claimant takes from someone who was already there. Either benefits get cut, or taxes go up, and the working class always pays. That’s why the political class now scapegoats the rich. They need the working man angry at billionaires so he doesn’t notice his slice of the welfare pie shrinking or quietly accept higher taxes to fund it all. Keep the resentment pointed upward, and maybe he won’t turn on the politicians actually responsible.

Immigration used to be a working-class issue. Workers saw it as competition for jobs, housing, hospital beds, and every other government benefit. Milton Friedman said it plainly: you cannot have open immigration and a welfare state. The welfare state turns into a magnet, pulling more people into a government system where the pie is fixed. Every new claimant takes from someone who was already there. Either benefits get cut, or taxes go up, and the working class always pays. That’s why the political class now scapegoats the rich. They need the working man angry at billionaires so he doesn’t notice his slice of the welfare pie shrinking or quietly accept higher taxes to fund it all. Keep the resentment pointed upward, and maybe he won’t turn on the politicians actually responsible.

Rothmus 🏴

14,038 views • 3 months ago

McCormick: So back in 1914, we had anybody can come to America. And nobody had a problem with that. Free immigration, by the way. Why is that? Milton Friedman talked about it, and he’s a great economist, because something changed between then and probably the ’70s and ‘80s when all of a sudden—even back then—we started recognizing there was a problem. Why is that? What’s the difference between open borders and closed borders between 1914 and the ’70s and ’80s? PabloReports: Well, some people would say that it’s because white immigrants were coming in 1914 and Latinos were coming in the ’70s and ’80s. McCormick: Not at all. If you have jobs to come to and you’re paying taxes, everybody’s happy. But if you come here and you’re starting to take welfare and we’re paying for you being here, that is a cost to America. The business of America is business. If you’re doing something that’s bad for the American economy, that doesn’t lift the tide of all ships here, then it’s not good for America. This is about the American country that we’ve all grown accustomed to. And it has to make common sense. I mean, common sense is what we’re supposed to be about.

McCormick: So back in 1914, we had anybody can come to America. And nobody had a problem with that. Free immigration, by the way. Why is that? Milton Friedman talked about it, and he’s a great economist, because something changed between then and probably the ’70s and ‘80s when all of a sudden—even back then—we started recognizing there was a problem. Why is that? What’s the difference between open borders and closed borders between 1914 and the ’70s and ’80s? PabloReports: Well, some people would say that it’s because white immigrants were coming in 1914 and Latinos were coming in the ’70s and ’80s. McCormick: Not at all. If you have jobs to come to and you’re paying taxes, everybody’s happy. But if you come here and you’re starting to take welfare and we’re paying for you being here, that is a cost to America. The business of America is business. If you’re doing something that’s bad for the American economy, that doesn’t lift the tide of all ships here, then it’s not good for America. This is about the American country that we’ve all grown accustomed to. And it has to make common sense. I mean, common sense is what we’re supposed to be about.

Acyn

86,754 views • 3 months ago

$“One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up.” - Milton Friedman Many capable people want to work and provide, yet welfare rules pay single mothers more when the father stays away or leaves. But without the father, poor families are fractured and the same cycle passes down to their kids. It creates the incentive for recipients to trade their independence and dignity for bureaucratic control, with caseworkers treating them like children, deciding where they can live and what they do with their days. And even when a better job appears, fear of losing the job keeps them stuck because if they lose benefits, they might have to wait for months to get back on. And so what was sold as temporary help becomes a self-reinforcing trap that punishes work, ambition, and stable families.$

“One of the saddest things is that many of the children whose parents are on welfare will in their turn end up in the welfare trap when they grow up.” - Milton Friedman Many capable people want to work and provide, yet welfare rules pay single mothers more when the father stays away or leaves. But without the father, poor families are fractured and the same cycle passes down to their kids. It creates the incentive for recipients to trade their independence and dignity for bureaucratic control, with caseworkers treating them like children, deciding where they can live and what they do with their days. And even when a better job appears, fear of losing the job keeps them stuck because if they lose benefits, they might have to wait for months to get back on. And so what was sold as temporary help becomes a self-reinforcing trap that punishes work, ambition, and stable families.

Rothmus 🏴

63,002 views • 3 months ago

Elon Musk is himself an immigrant, so claims that he opposes immigration miss the point. His view is simple: welcome newcomers who work, contribute, respect the law, and treat their adopted country and its people with decency. "Let me explain the fundamental incentive behind insecure borders. When a welfare state provides substantial benefits to anyone who arrives, it creates a powerful economic incentive for people living below that standard to come to Europe. If people can achieve a higher standard of living in Europe than where they are elsewhere in the world, they will come. It is a basic and powerful incentive structure. I am in favor of immigration. It would be hypocritical for me not to be, since I am an immigrant to the United States. I support immigration when people are going to be productive members of society, are honest, and do not mistreat people in the country they enter."

Elon Musk is himself an immigrant, so claims that he opposes immigration miss the point. His view is simple: welcome newcomers who work, contribute, respect the law, and treat their adopted country and its people with decency. "Let me explain the fundamental incentive behind insecure borders. When a welfare state provides substantial benefits to anyone who arrives, it creates a powerful economic incentive for people living below that standard to come to Europe. If people can achieve a higher standard of living in Europe than where they are elsewhere in the world, they will come. It is a basic and powerful incentive structure. I am in favor of immigration. It would be hypocritical for me not to be, since I am an immigrant to the United States. I support immigration when people are going to be productive members of society, are honest, and do not mistreat people in the country they enter."

Doge Tipping

11,268 views • 2 months ago

What happens to a country when its leaders stop asking what kind of nation they want to preserve? Immigration is a subject where people can have completely different opinions, but there is a basic question that is difficult to avoid. How much immigration can a country absorb while still maintaining control over its borders, its institutions, its infrastructure, and its sense of national identity? The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, but that doesn't mean immigration policy has to be unlimited or that a country has no right to decide who enters and under what conditions. Congress has broad constitutional authority over immigration, including the power to establish rules governing admission and exclusion. There's also a difference between having compassion for individual people and claiming that a government should be able to enforce its own immigration laws. Those ideas don't have to contradict each other. If a nation can't control who enters its territory, enforce the laws it has on the books, or determine the scale and pace of immigration, then the question becomes much bigger than immigration itself. It becomes a question of sovereignty and whether citizens still have meaningful control over the direction of their own country. And that's where the conversation gets uncomfortable. We can debate how many immigrants should be admitted, what legal pathways should look like, and how enforcement should work. But pretending there are no consequences to immigration policy doesn't make those consequences disappear. A country has limited resources, limited infrastructure, and a population with its own history and institutions. Citizens have every right to ask what policies best serve the long term interests of the nation they inherited and hope to pass on to their children. The real question isn't whether America should have immigration. It is whether Americans are still willing to have an honest conversation about what level of immigration is sustainable and what kind of country they want to preserve. If we don't decide what we want our nation to remain, who will?

What happens to a country when its leaders stop asking what kind of nation they want to preserve? Immigration is a subject where people can have completely different opinions, but there is a basic question that is difficult to avoid. How much immigration can a country absorb while still maintaining control over its borders, its institutions, its infrastructure, and its sense of national identity? The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, but that doesn't mean immigration policy has to be unlimited or that a country has no right to decide who enters and under what conditions. Congress has broad constitutional authority over immigration, including the power to establish rules governing admission and exclusion. There's also a difference between having compassion for individual people and claiming that a government should be able to enforce its own immigration laws. Those ideas don't have to contradict each other. If a nation can't control who enters its territory, enforce the laws it has on the books, or determine the scale and pace of immigration, then the question becomes much bigger than immigration itself. It becomes a question of sovereignty and whether citizens still have meaningful control over the direction of their own country. And that's where the conversation gets uncomfortable. We can debate how many immigrants should be admitted, what legal pathways should look like, and how enforcement should work. But pretending there are no consequences to immigration policy doesn't make those consequences disappear. A country has limited resources, limited infrastructure, and a population with its own history and institutions. Citizens have every right to ask what policies best serve the long term interests of the nation they inherited and hope to pass on to their children. The real question isn't whether America should have immigration. It is whether Americans are still willing to have an honest conversation about what level of immigration is sustainable and what kind of country they want to preserve. If we don't decide what we want our nation to remain, who will?

Declaration of Memes

17,122 views • 17 days ago

[WATCH] ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION What people don’t understand when they argue that the ANC promotes illegal immigration and is for illegal immigration, what they deliberately misunderstand is that we are firm on the law. The law must take its course and the state alone must enforce laws, because it’s got the responsibility to do that. We have not opposed people who have publicly protested the issue of illegal immigration but have called for those protests to occur within the confines of the law. No citizen of our country must take the law unto their own hands, chase people, show hatred and call people “amakwerekwere”. That is not ubuntu, that is not South African. These are Africans, and they might have landed in our country illegally and we believe that lawfully as we are seeing our government at this moment, they must be assisted to go back home peacefully. We must protect our borders as BMA is doing because they are too porous. Let us not make it possible for illegal immigration to flourish in our country. #RegisterToVoteANC #LGE2026

[WATCH] ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION What people don’t understand when they argue that the ANC promotes illegal immigration and is for illegal immigration, what they deliberately misunderstand is that we are firm on the law. The law must take its course and the state alone must enforce laws, because it’s got the responsibility to do that. We have not opposed people who have publicly protested the issue of illegal immigration but have called for those protests to occur within the confines of the law. No citizen of our country must take the law unto their own hands, chase people, show hatred and call people “amakwerekwere”. That is not ubuntu, that is not South African. These are Africans, and they might have landed in our country illegally and we believe that lawfully as we are seeing our government at this moment, they must be assisted to go back home peacefully. We must protect our borders as BMA is doing because they are too porous. Let us not make it possible for illegal immigration to flourish in our country. #RegisterToVoteANC #LGE2026

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

52,581 views • 1 month ago

Howard Lutnick explains our broken immigration system: Open borders and a welfare state is a recipe for disaster “ You can't really open the border and say, ‘I'm gonna give my money to anybody who wants to come in.’” “That's getting it wrong.” “So when people say, ‘Open immigration is how we built America,’ they are right.” “And open immigration would be something interesting if we gave people nothing.” “Because if we gave them nothing, if they weren't smart enough, capable, entrepreneurial enough, driven enough, they would starve to death. And so they wouldn't stay here. They would self-deport and leave.” “But if you're gonna give them welfare, and you're gonna give them food stamps, and you're gonna give them housing, and you give them this, that, then everybody's gonna come and just leech off of us and we're gonna pay, and pay, and pay.”

Howard Lutnick explains our broken immigration system: Open borders and a welfare state is a recipe for disaster “ You can't really open the border and say, ‘I'm gonna give my money to anybody who wants to come in.’” “That's getting it wrong.” “So when people say, ‘Open immigration is how we built America,’ they are right.” “And open immigration would be something interesting if we gave people nothing.” “Because if we gave them nothing, if they weren't smart enough, capable, entrepreneurial enough, driven enough, they would starve to death. And so they wouldn't stay here. They would self-deport and leave.” “But if you're gonna give them welfare, and you're gonna give them food stamps, and you're gonna give them housing, and you give them this, that, then everybody's gonna come and just leech off of us and we're gonna pay, and pay, and pay.”

The All-In Podcast

78,267 views • 8 months ago

Imagine having to put up with this everyday at work. A man goes home to Romania for three months and expects his dole money and rent money to be waiting for him when he gets back. Under EU law, a person from another EU country can move to another country 1. If they have enough money to support themselves and their families . 2. If they have health Insurance. 3. If they are seeking work they can stay in Ireland for three months but again they MUST have enough money to support themselves and their families and have health Insurance. 4. They can apply for an extension of another three months if they are looking for work. So the question is why is Ireland 1. Paying for housing for persons from other EU countries who failed to optain work. 2. Paying social welfare to persons who moved here from other EU countries for extended periods of time. Also bear in mind There is no automatic entitlement to access social welfare payments in Ireland as an Irish citizen. To qualify you will need to satisfy payment related criteria, and either have enough social insurance contributions, or satisfy the HRC "Habitual Residence Condition" and a means test in some cases. Yet this guy wants it all.

Imagine having to put up with this everyday at work. A man goes home to Romania for three months and expects his dole money and rent money to be waiting for him when he gets back. Under EU law, a person from another EU country can move to another country 1. If they have enough money to support themselves and their families . 2. If they have health Insurance. 3. If they are seeking work they can stay in Ireland for three months but again they MUST have enough money to support themselves and their families and have health Insurance. 4. They can apply for an extension of another three months if they are looking for work. So the question is why is Ireland 1. Paying for housing for persons from other EU countries who failed to optain work. 2. Paying social welfare to persons who moved here from other EU countries for extended periods of time. Also bear in mind There is no automatic entitlement to access social welfare payments in Ireland as an Irish citizen. To qualify you will need to satisfy payment related criteria, and either have enough social insurance contributions, or satisfy the HRC "Habitual Residence Condition" and a means test in some cases. Yet this guy wants it all.

Keira Connolly

818,088 views • 2 years ago

SNAP and Section 8 cost U.S. taxpayers $138 billion last year, and that is before Medicaid, SSI, and the rest. Food is expensive in part because 42 million people are buying groceries with a card someone else funded. The damage is not only the bill. When tens of millions of people organize their month around a government check, they stop voting on the country and start voting on the benefit. Borders, crime, and debt become background noise next to the one question that matters to them: who will keep the groceries and the rent voucher flowing. Milton Friedman put it plainly: you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.

SNAP and Section 8 cost U.S. taxpayers $138 billion last year, and that is before Medicaid, SSI, and the rest. Food is expensive in part because 42 million people are buying groceries with a card someone else funded. The damage is not only the bill. When tens of millions of people organize their month around a government check, they stop voting on the country and start voting on the benefit. Borders, crime, and debt become background noise next to the one question that matters to them: who will keep the groceries and the rent voucher flowing. Milton Friedman put it plainly: you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.

American AF 🇺🇸

72,519 views • 27 days ago

🚨Britain is buckling under the strain of mass immigration and welfare abuse. Jobless migrant households have racked up £10 billion in benefits in just 18 months, paid for by your taxes. Enough is enough. In this powerful video, Rupert Lowe MP lays out two simple, common sense Restore Britain policies that would fix so much, so fast: No benefits for foreigners. No social housing for foreigners. And if they can't support themselves? Encourage them to leave and deport those who refuse. This isn't extreme. It's what any self-respecting nation does. Watch as Rupert explains why it's time to put British families first, cut the incentives for illegal boats, free up housing and NHS capacity, and finally end the taxpayer-funded piss-take. If you agree, this is the party that's ready to act. Join

🚨Britain is buckling under the strain of mass immigration and welfare abuse. Jobless migrant households have racked up £10 billion in benefits in just 18 months, paid for by your taxes. Enough is enough. In this powerful video, Rupert Lowe MP lays out two simple, common sense Restore Britain policies that would fix so much, so fast: No benefits for foreigners. No social housing for foreigners. And if they can't support themselves? Encourage them to leave and deport those who refuse. This isn't extreme. It's what any self-respecting nation does. Watch as Rupert explains why it's time to put British families first, cut the incentives for illegal boats, free up housing and NHS capacity, and finally end the taxpayer-funded piss-take. If you agree, this is the party that's ready to act. Join

Let'sRestoreBritain

74,492 views • 1 month ago

🚨Britain is buckling under the strain of mass immigration and welfare abuse. Jobless migrant households have racked up £10 billion in benefits in just 18 months, paid for by your taxes. Enough is enough. In this powerful video, Rupert Lowe MP lays out two simple, common sense Restore Britain policies that would fix so much, so fast: No benefits for foreigners. No social housing for foreigners. And if they can't support themselves? Encourage them to leave and deport those who refuse. This isn't extreme. It's what any self-respecting nation does. Watch as Rupert explains why it's time to put British families first, cut the incentives for illegal boats, free up housing and NHS capacity, and finally end the taxpayer-funded piss-take. If you agree, this is the party that's ready to act. Join

🚨Britain is buckling under the strain of mass immigration and welfare abuse. Jobless migrant households have racked up £10 billion in benefits in just 18 months, paid for by your taxes. Enough is enough. In this powerful video, Rupert Lowe MP lays out two simple, common sense Restore Britain policies that would fix so much, so fast: No benefits for foreigners. No social housing for foreigners. And if they can't support themselves? Encourage them to leave and deport those who refuse. This isn't extreme. It's what any self-respecting nation does. Watch as Rupert explains why it's time to put British families first, cut the incentives for illegal boats, free up housing and NHS capacity, and finally end the taxpayer-funded piss-take. If you agree, this is the party that's ready to act. Join

Let'sRestoreBritain

73,184 views • 6 months ago

Congressman Brandon Gill says diversity is not helping America, it’s destroying us “The melting pot simply isn't melting. That's a problem. The foreign-born population is about as high as it's ever been in American history. What is the purpose of an immigration system? The purpose of our immigration system is to benefit our people. Historically, American immigration was predicated on two key ideas. One of those was you cannot be what's called a public burden. In other words, you can't come into the country and immediately hop on welfare and expect the American people to pay for your food and your housing, your healthcare and everything else. The second was a concept of cultural assimilation. You were expected to come into the United the United States and to become fully American, not a hyphenated American, you're expected to adopt our customs, our core beliefs, revere our heritage just like we do. Part of the rationale behind drastically reducing legal immigration as well as illegal immigration is allow that assimilation to actually occur, for people to actually melt and recohere as an American society.” Around 53% of households headed by foreign-born immigrants use at least one major means-tested welfare program I saw some data that showed 70% of Mexicans that come to America are on welfare, I made a post about it previously No immigrant should ever qualify for any welfare programs. They should be for American citizens and American taxpayers only

Congressman Brandon Gill says diversity is not helping America, it’s destroying us “The melting pot simply isn't melting. That's a problem. The foreign-born population is about as high as it's ever been in American history. What is the purpose of an immigration system? The purpose of our immigration system is to benefit our people. Historically, American immigration was predicated on two key ideas. One of those was you cannot be what's called a public burden. In other words, you can't come into the country and immediately hop on welfare and expect the American people to pay for your food and your housing, your healthcare and everything else. The second was a concept of cultural assimilation. You were expected to come into the United the United States and to become fully American, not a hyphenated American, you're expected to adopt our customs, our core beliefs, revere our heritage just like we do. Part of the rationale behind drastically reducing legal immigration as well as illegal immigration is allow that assimilation to actually occur, for people to actually melt and recohere as an American society.” Around 53% of households headed by foreign-born immigrants use at least one major means-tested welfare program I saw some data that showed 70% of Mexicans that come to America are on welfare, I made a post about it previously No immigrant should ever qualify for any welfare programs. They should be for American citizens and American taxpayers only

Wall Street Apes

89,093 views • 3 months ago

Friedberg’s Ideal Immigration Test: Worker or Welfare? (Or Makers vs Takers) “I'm all about discerning immigration, not on the lines of some cultural definition, but really around that simple framing of are you going to get social support services or are you going to work? Going back to my makers vs takers point, if the primary motivation for an individual to come to this country is to be given benefits, to be given payments, to be given social services, to be given support, I think that that person should be denied immigration. If the primary motivation for the individual to come to the United States is to work to progress themselves, to become a maker, to create things, to work in such a way that they can generate income, save capital, buy things, advance their family's position because they are denied those rights due to the tyranny of the place that they're coming from, then they should be granted immigration status to come to this country and contribute. Because at the end of the day, what people may not like to hear, which is the truth, is that every single one of those people is actually net positive in growing our economy. And everyone thinks it's a zero-sum game with respect to jobs in the United States, and we shouldn't let people into this country that create jobs. But the fundamental truth is that anyone that is productive, meaning they create more value than they take in, grows the economy and more jobs get created, and overall, we all benefit from having those individuals here in this country. And by the way, if you are going to work, you are going to culturally assimilate, because that is what the United States is based on, which is productivity, work hard, create things, and have individual agency, have the ability to progress yourself in this world, in this society. And if you take advantage of that opportunity, you're going to love the American ideals that this country was founded upon.”

Friedberg’s Ideal Immigration Test: Worker or Welfare? (Or Makers vs Takers) “I'm all about discerning immigration, not on the lines of some cultural definition, but really around that simple framing of are you going to get social support services or are you going to work? Going back to my makers vs takers point, if the primary motivation for an individual to come to this country is to be given benefits, to be given payments, to be given social services, to be given support, I think that that person should be denied immigration. If the primary motivation for the individual to come to the United States is to work to progress themselves, to become a maker, to create things, to work in such a way that they can generate income, save capital, buy things, advance their family's position because they are denied those rights due to the tyranny of the place that they're coming from, then they should be granted immigration status to come to this country and contribute. Because at the end of the day, what people may not like to hear, which is the truth, is that every single one of those people is actually net positive in growing our economy. And everyone thinks it's a zero-sum game with respect to jobs in the United States, and we shouldn't let people into this country that create jobs. But the fundamental truth is that anyone that is productive, meaning they create more value than they take in, grows the economy and more jobs get created, and overall, we all benefit from having those individuals here in this country. And by the way, if you are going to work, you are going to culturally assimilate, because that is what the United States is based on, which is productivity, work hard, create things, and have individual agency, have the ability to progress yourself in this world, in this society. And if you take advantage of that opportunity, you're going to love the American ideals that this country was founded upon.”

The All-In Podcast

55,036 views • 2 months ago

It’s Happening ‼️ The Donald Trump Administration finalized a rule rescinding Biden regulations, immigrants who have used welfare can now be DENIED Green Cards “That includes food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and more. The policy was first implemented in early 2020 by President Trump, but it was reversed after Joe Biden became president. It will be formally reinstated” But don’t let the Democrat Party lie to you, this is how it always should have been, this was our policy before Democrats started the welfare state ‘The public charge ground of inadmissibility’ has existed in US immigration law for over a century under the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act.’ It allows denial of visas or green cards if an applicant is deemed likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support Trump’s first term simply expanded the rule to consider a broader range of non-cash benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance, plus factors like age, health, income, education, and English proficiency It does not automatically deny anyone for using benefits but now there is more discretion by immigration officers to make these decisions based on all circumstances

It’s Happening ‼️ The Donald Trump Administration finalized a rule rescinding Biden regulations, immigrants who have used welfare can now be DENIED Green Cards “That includes food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and more. The policy was first implemented in early 2020 by President Trump, but it was reversed after Joe Biden became president. It will be formally reinstated” But don’t let the Democrat Party lie to you, this is how it always should have been, this was our policy before Democrats started the welfare state ‘The public charge ground of inadmissibility’ has existed in US immigration law for over a century under the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act.’ It allows denial of visas or green cards if an applicant is deemed likely to become primarily dependent on the government for support Trump’s first term simply expanded the rule to consider a broader range of non-cash benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance, plus factors like age, health, income, education, and English proficiency It does not automatically deny anyone for using benefits but now there is more discretion by immigration officers to make these decisions based on all circumstances

Wall Street Apes

276,348 views • 2 months ago

Bill Clinton speech in 1995 “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.” “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service, they use imposed burdens on our taxpayers.” “That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before by cracking down on illegal hiring by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.” “We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes to better identify illegal aliens in the work force” “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it”

Bill Clinton speech in 1995 “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.” “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service, they use imposed burdens on our taxpayers.” “That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before by cracking down on illegal hiring by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.” “We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes to better identify illegal aliens in the work force” “It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it”

Wall Street Apes

105,204 views • 1 year ago