Let’s discuss “public charge” for illegal immigrants. In the simplest terms, public charge means that someone is dependent on government assistance (welfare). Public charge is a ground of “inadmissibility,” enacted by Congress, that is a basis for a noncitizen’s deportation under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Prior to the Biden Administration, noncitizens were regularly found inadmissible because they were considered a “public charge,” aka taking up too much welfare. But this all changed starting in 2021, and in 2022, the Biden Admin issued a presidential proclamation and new regulations that make the public charge statute nearly useless. Let’s take a look at why. Under the new rules, the following people cannot be considered a public charge: asylees and refugees, special immigrant juveniles, and applicants seeking TPS (this is literally millions of people). You can see the other categories of illegals who are not considered a public charge in picture #1. Under the new rules, the only types of public assistance that are considered in making a public charge determination include (1) supplemental security income, (2) cash assistance under TANF, (3) state and local cash assistance programs, and (4) long-term institutionalizations at a government nursing home or hospital. The following types of public assistance ARE NOT considered: -SNAP/WIC -Medicaid/Obamacare insurance -Child Tax Credit programs, mainly the Earned Income Tax Credit ($$$$$$$) -Public schooling and school lunch and breakfast programs -Housing benefits/Homeless housing assistance -Children’s Health Insurance Program -Cash payments for childcare assistance -Child and Adult Food Care Program -Government pensions and unemployment insurance -Energy assistance programs -Any and all programs, services, and assistance provided by nonprofit organizations (or as I call them, tax-exempt fraudsters) -Transportation vouches/assistance -Job training programs All of this can be found on the USCIS website. As you can see, the current administration has taken the position that illegals can receive as much public assistance as they need, with very few exceptions. This makes deporting someone/denying them a green card based on public charge nearly impossible. In practice, it doesn’t happen anymore. You can see all of this on the website of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

RT @DrJohnEastman: Just listened to the Preliminary Injunction hearing in Seattle. Unbelievable. After the DOJ attorney made a compelling a…

The comments 😂😂😂

@McGregorRousey2 You do realize that Canelo’s fights are all rigged, right?

The only way I can see this being problematic is noncitizens will argue for protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that they would be detained indefinitely without due process, and possibly harmed by gang members while in detention. Some judges will agree.

@ufc @dricusduplessis @SStricklandMMA Excited! This fight is gonna be good. Zhang v Suarez will also be killer

@KathleenBushJo2 @ruizags And remember that Trump has only been in office for two weeks 😌

I had to attend a mandatory course taught by one of these consultants. The course was titled “communicating with people from diverse backgrounds,” or something like that. The whole time I kept wondering “how did this DEI person get a government contract?”

@Mick_O_Keeffe !!

Holy sh*t he did it! Trump got Mad Man Maduro to accept deportation flights!!

@megynkelly @SecRubio Venezuela?? Would love to hear about efforts to make Maduro accept deportation flights

@UnfiltdTruth Holy shit. Naprea knocked it out of the park

@BillAckman @SenSchumer Wow, what a statement. Well said, Bill.

@WallStreetApes Got any more of them follow-up videos??

While prosecutors mentioned that there is an "ICE detainer" for Martinez-Cermeno, and that ICE would likely take him into custody upon his release, the judge said this was legally unacceptable as ICE did not have the proper judicial warrant to detain him further, and that an ICE detainer is only a "civil request." 😂

@AlexNowrasteh That depends. If you are unlawfully present in the U.S. after being ordered removed by an IJ for an offense under 237(a), you can receive criminal penalties. See 243(a) (I believe that’s the section).

@billybinion Aaron is barely an immigration lawyer. Also, you have to draw the distinction between aliens who entered the U.S. illegally, and those who are unlawfully remaining in the U.S. after being ordered removed by an immigration judge. See INA 240(c)(5), 274D(a), 237(a), and 243(a).

@BillMelugin_ This is correct. @billybinion has no idea what he’s talking about. Leave this to the experts, and once again Bill, I’m impressed by your knowledge of Title 8 of the U.S. Code 😎