Do you ever tire of being called a racist for holding commonsensical beliefs? Have you ever wondered if there's an end to liberal buffoonery? Recently a Forum columnist, known for leftist bomb-throwing and tweaking bourgeois noses, issued a witch's brew of ignorance and bigotry. He claims that the proposal to exclude immigrants who are likely to be “public charges,” that is, not self-supporting without taxpayer aid, is another GOP piece of racism and “white nationalism.” After all, he says, it will be dark-skinned people most affected by the change.

Let's make his point clear: Americans who disfavor digging into their own pockets to give welfare to millions of immigrants are a bunch of bigots and racists, even if many of those taxpayers are black or brown. The columnist's assertion is absurd on its face, not to mention entirely ahistorical.


Governments at all levels have had the right to exclude “paupers” or those liable to be public charges for over half a millennium in America and England. All the way back to Plymouth Rock and the pre-Constitution “Articles of Confederation,” the power to restrict ingress of paupers was a part of accepted law. This regulation of paupers in America covered both citizens and foreign immigrants. In the 1849 United States Supreme Court “Passenger Cases” this right was affirmed as a legitimate police power “founded in the sacred law of self-defense;” thus, no state was obliged to take on the burden of those who couldn't support themselves. In fact, this state power was universally accepted for 150 years.

WDAY logo
listen live
watch live

Constitutional scholar Raoul Berger argued that the issue is not whether a migrant (domestic or foreign) is worthy of taxpayer aid, but “whether the taxpayers of that State must be burdened with the cost of supporting the 'deserving' migrant.” But this is anathema to those who are generous with other people's money.

Note that the many pauper laws in American history affected mostly white citizens and white immigrants (typically from Europe), particularly in the 19th century. Thus, in short order, our hate-soaked columnist's assertions of racism go down the drain. The laws were color blind. That the Trump administration's proposed public charge law would affect Second and Third World immigrants more heavily than others is because immigration from Europe has nearly ceased, and a large portion of the world's population living in failed cultures and countries want to get out. Their desire is understandable, but so is our right to accept or reject whomever, whenever, for whatever reason.

We're all ignorant of some things, but a willful ignorance is tantamount to lying. There are no more excuses for lies about President Trump “putting children in cages” (actually chain link barriers for their protection) when President Obama did the same thing, or that Trump is evil for separating children from their parents when that's what the law required. I suggest that those who wish to be informed about the proposed rule change go to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services site,”Final Rule of Public Charge Ground on Inadmissibility.” There are many exceptions to the rule. Bigoted liberals may use their crayons to take notes.