Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System

Staff Writer, DL Mullan
Healthcare / Taxpayers / Immigrants / Public Charge

___________________________________

Healthcare providers and taxpayers bear substantial costs in paying for medical expenses incurred by people who lack health insurance or the ability to pay for their healthcare. Hospitals and other providers often administer care to the uninsured without any hope of receiving reimbursement from them. The costs associated with this care are passed on to the American people in the form of higher taxes, higher premiums, and higher fees for medical services. In total, uncompensated care costs — the overall measure of unreimbursed services that hospitals give their patients — have exceeded $35 billion in each of the last 10 years. These costs amount to approximately $7 million on average for each hospital in the United States, and can drive hospitals into insolvency. Beyond uncompensated care costs, the uninsured strain Federal and State government budgets through their reliance on publicly funded programs, which ultimately are financed by taxpayers.

Beyond imposing higher costs on hospitals and other healthcare infrastructure, uninsured individuals often use emergency rooms to seek remedies for a variety of non-emergency conditions, causing overcrowding and delays for those who truly need emergency services. This non-emergency usage places a large burden on taxpayers, who reimburse hospitals for a portion of their uncompensated emergency care costs.

While our healthcare system grapples with the challenges caused by uncompensated care, the United States Government is making the problem worse by admitting thousands of aliens who have not demonstrated any ability to pay for their healthcare costs. Notably, data show that lawful immigrants are about three times more likely than United States citizens to lack health insurance. Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our healthcare system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs.

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants who come lawfully in search of brighter futures. We must continue that tradition while also addressing the challenges facing our healthcare system, including protecting both it and the American taxpayer from the burdens of uncompensated care. Continuing to allow entry into the United States of certain immigrants who lack health insurance or the demonstrated ability to pay for their healthcare would be detrimental to these interests.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided for in section 2 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and that their entry should be subject to certain restrictions, limitations, and exceptions. I therefore hereby proclaim the following:

Section 1. Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) The entry into the United States as immigrants of aliens who will financially burden the United States healthcare system is hereby suspended and limited subject to section 2 of this proclamation. An alien will financially burden the United States healthcare system unless the alien will be covered by approved health insurance, as defined in subsection (b) of this section, within 30 days of the alien’s entry into the United States, or unless the alien possesses the financial resources to pay for reasonably foreseeable medical costs.

(b) Approved health insurance means coverage under any of the following plans or programs:

(i) an employer-sponsored plan, including a retiree plan, association health plan, and coverage provided by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985;

(ii) an unsubsidized health plan offered in the individual market within a State;

(iii) a short-term limited duration health policy effective for a minimum of 364 days — or until the beginning of planned, extended travel outside the United States;

(iv) a catastrophic plan;

(v) a family member’s plan;

(vi) a medical plan under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including coverage under the TRICARE program;

(vii) a visitor health insurance plan that provides adequate coverage for medical care for a minimum of 364 days — or until the beginning of planned, extended travel outside the United States;

(viii) a medical plan under the Medicare program; or

(ix) any other health plan that provides adequate coverage for medical care as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or his designee.

(c) For persons over the age of 18, approved health insurance does not include coverage under the Medicaid program.

Sec. 2. Scope of Suspension and Limitation on Entry. (a) Section 1 of this proclamation shall apply only to aliens seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an immigrant visa.

(b) Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply to:

(i) any alien holding a valid immigrant visa issued before the effective date of this proclamation;

(ii) any alien seeking to enter the United States pursuant to a Special Immigrant Visa, in either the SI or SQ classification, who is also a national of Afghanistan or Iraq, or his or her spouse and children, if any;

(iii) any alien who is the child of a United States citizen or who is seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an IR-2, IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, or IH-4 visa;

(iv) any alien seeking to enter the United States pursuant to an IR-5 visa, provided that the alien or the alien’s sponsor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the consular officer that the alien’s healthcare will not impose a substantial burden on the United States healthcare system;

(v) any alien seeking to enter the United States pursuant to a SB-1 visa;

(vi) any alien under the age of 18, except for any alien accompanying a parent who is also immigrating to the United States and subject to this proclamation;

(vii) any alien whose entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives, as determined by the Secretary of State or his designee based on a recommendation of the Attorney General or his designee; or

(viii) any alien whose entry would be in the national interest, as determined by the Secretary of State or his designee on a case-by-case basis.

(c) Consistent with subsection (a) of this section, this proclamation does not affect the entry of aliens entering the United States through means other than immigrant visas, including lawful permanent residents. Further, nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to affect any individual’s eligibility for asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, consistent with the laws and regulations of the United States.

Sec. 3. Implementation and Enforcement. (a) An alien subject to this proclamation must establish that he or she meets its requirements, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, before the adjudication and issuance of an immigrant visa. The Secretary of State may establish standards and procedures governing such determinations.

(b) The review required by subsection (a) of this section is separate and independent from the review and determination required by other statutes, regulations, or proclamations in determining the admissibility of an alien.

(c) An alien who circumvents the application of this proclamation through fraud, willful misrepresentation of a material fact, or illegal entry shall be a priority for removal by the Department of Homeland Security.

Sec. 4. Reports on the Financial Burdens Imposed by Immigrants on the Healthcare System. (a) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall submit to the President a report regarding:

(i) the continued necessity of and any adjustments that may be warranted to the suspension and limitation on entry in section 1 of this proclamation; and

(ii) other measures that may be warranted to protect the integrity of the United States healthcare system.

(b) The report required by subsection (a) of this section shall be submitted within 180 days of the effective date of this proclamation, with subsequent reports submitted annually thereafter throughout the effective duration of the suspension and limitation on entry set forth in section 1 of this proclamation. If the Secretary of State, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate executive departments and agencies, determines that circumstances no longer warrant the continued effectiveness of the suspension or limitation on entry set forth in section 1 of this proclamation or that circumstances warrant additional measures, the Secretary shall immediately so advise the President.

(c) The Secretary of State and Secretary of Health and Human Services shall coordinate any policy recommendations associated with the reports described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 5. Severability. It is the policy of the United States to enforce this proclamation to the maximum extent possible to advance the interests of the United States. Accordingly:

(a) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of the proclamation and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and

(b) if any provision of this proclamation, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid because of the failure to follow certain procedures, the relevant executive branch officials shall implement those procedural requirements to conform with existing law and with any applicable court orders.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements;

(ii) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(iii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 7. Effective Date. This proclamation is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on November 3, 2019.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-fourth.


DONALD J. TRUMP


Source: White House 

1776 to 1478: How the Evangelical Right has taken Women back to the Inquisition

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Women's Rights / Religion
________________________________

The alternative right and conservative media proclaim a return to the ideals of 1776, but that group has hidden their extreme views to get their candidate elected. Articles and radio shows from the right have characterized their point of view as the Renaissance for all. Comparisons of their religion versus other religions has been used to highlight the right's commitment to freedom and rights for all.

It has all been a lie. 

When the alternative right and conservatives' control of the United States Congress and Presidency happened, their behavior changed. Now shows are full of making fun of and demeaning women as well as using their religious ideology to pass laws condemning women and eliminating their health choices.

In reality, the Religious Right is no better than the other patriarchal religions on Earth. Man made deities and dogma seek to undermine society through manipulation of girls, young women, and adult women. That leaves the quality of women's lives below being subpar. 

That was more apparent when President Donald Trump signed an executive order gagging healthcare providers across the world from mentioning the word: abortion. In extreme poverty, there is extreme sexual violence. Unintended pregnancies are forced upon women and their only recourse is to terminate the pregnancy. Now with the burden of reality even heavier than before, women will have to resort to other means, which will end up killing women and children alike. 

Children will be abandoned at orphanages. Some children will be left to die because their mother cannot take care of them. Others will be neglected and abused. 

Instead of ending suffering, the Religious Rights' interference in basic reproductive medical needs will now lead to a growing humanitarian crisis. To the pro-birth agenda, a child born is a success no matter the pain that will afflict that life. Hunger, war, and rape are acceptable to the patriarchy since that experience is a woman's concern. 

This negative attitude toward other people's belief systems is reminiscent of a bygone era, though not of the Renaissance, but of a darker time ruled by the unfeeling, uncaring vision of the patriarchy.

It was 1478. The year the Spanish Inquisition began. This religious witch hunt led to even more egregious historical events.

Who can forget the religious purity movement of the Reconquista in the 15th Century? With the alternative right and conservative agenda to purify America of women's rights, liberation, and equity, has the American electorate ushered in another age of submission by torture? 

At first, the Spanish Inquisition sought to convert or expel Spanish Jews. Then the state set its sights on ridding their land of Muslims.

At Torquemada’s urging, Ferdinand and Isabella issued an edict on March 31, 1492, giving Spanish Jews the choice of exile or baptism; as a result, more than 160,000 Jews were expelled from Spain. Francisco, Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros, promoted the suppression of Muslims with the same zeal that Torquemada had directed at Jews. In 1502 he ordered the proscription of Islam in Granada, the last of the Muslim kingdoms in Spain to fall to the Reconquista. The persecution of Muslims accelerated in 1507 when Jiménez was named grand inquisitor. Muslims in Valencia and Aragon were subjected to forced conversion in 1526, and Islam was subsequently banned in Spain. The Inquisition then devoted its attention to the Moriscos, Spanish Muslims who had previously accepted baptism. Expressions of Morisco culture were forbidden by Philip II in 1566, and within three years, persecution by the Inquisition gave way to open warfare between the Moriscos and the Spanish crown. The Moriscos were driven from Granada in 1571, and by 1614 some 300,000 had been expelled from Spain entirely.

As the state's uncontrollable hunger for religious justice continued more and more ideologies were attacked:

When the Reformation began to penetrate into Spain, the relatively few Spanish Protestants were eliminated by the Inquisition. Foreigners suspected of promoting Protestant faiths within Spain met similarly violent ends. Having largely purged the country of Jews and Muslims—as well as many former members of those faiths who had converted to Christianity—the Spanish Inquisition turned its attention to prominent Roman Catholics. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was twice arrested on suspicion of heresy, and the archbishop of Toledo, the Dominican Bartolomé de Carranza, was imprisoned for almost 17 years. Nominally Christian groups that diverged from the Inquisition’s orthodoxy, such as the followers of the mystical Alumbrado movement and adherents of Erasmianism (a spiritualized Christian belief system influenced by the teachings of humanistDesiderius Erasmus), were subjected to intense persecution throughout the 16th and into the 17th century.

This religious intolerance spread across into Christian nations like a wave of fear and hatred. This fervor led to the infamous Salem Witch Trials, that arrested 200 and killed 20. The religious justice happened all in the name of religion. It happened all in the name of GOD. 

Except in the United States of America, our founding principles are not Christian based. Nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights claim any Christian values, morality, or ethics. Yet year after year, Christians have demanded the Ten Commandments be placed in the People's court houses, their religion be given national holidays, and the Nativity scene honored on public lands.

If you question the religious favoritism, then the Religious Right screams: the War on Christmas!!!

All the while, the Evangelist preachers and celebrities try more manipulations to make America a One God, One Religion nation, but those individuals lie for profit and power.

So how can the Religious Right claim superiority over other Abrahamic practices with their dubious track record of deceit and tantrums? America is not for one ideology. What cannot be argued is what our founders outlined for this nation: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is clear: there can be no establishment of religion, but the Evangelicals try and try. The Religious Right elect their selected politicians in hopes of changing our Constitution to establish their very own theocracy.

However the Religious Right's Era of Evangelical Inquisition has met with the ire of the People. Namely, women have risen to meet history to derail the plan to overthrow our government. Protests commenced around the world. The largest was the Women's March on Washington.

The seed of equity was planted, no matter by whom, and women are taking responsibility for their government in ways the Religious Right has never taken responsibility for destroying our economy, finances, soldier's lives, or welfare of its citizens.

But women face an uphill battle as alternative media celebrities dismiss women and their concerns as that time of the month or just needing a daddy. When verbal tirades from talk show hosts and article writers depict real life issues as the old-standby hysteria (a woman's uterus problem: hysterectomy) excuse, that disingenuous mockery shows the true nature of the patriarchy: contempt.

As one alternative radio show host ended his broadcast yesterday to the effect that Soros brainwashes women who do not have a man. Most women have never met George Soros. The marches are not about George Soros but a failing patriarchy that yells about women needing a daddy like the state to live off but then the same men jump in exuberance that "Daddy's Home" when President Trump was elected.

Smell the transference? It's the extreme far right who needs a male role model to lead as an alpha male because the rest are incapable of being mature. The rest of us expect honor, honesty, and equity out of our government as any adult should. We don't need a daddy. We certainly do not need the patriarchal inquisition.

As women in America brace for the next wave of religious extremism to wash over the halls of political power, only time will tell how far and how unethical the Religious Right will be in condemning women into sexual slavery like that of the 1940's. Whatever the religious zealots have planned, women will bide their time to reclaim their rights.

Religion like other communitarianist regimes always place privileges on others for social control. That leads to groups to form against such hypocrisy. The Woman's March will be the next Tea Party, except to strip power away from the religious elite and back into the hands of the meek, the women... the People. 

Religion was never supposed to rule in America.

As Thomas Paine wrote: 

“All religions are in their nature kind and benign, and united with principles of morality. They could not have made proselytes at first by professing anything that was vicious, cruel, persecuting, or immoral. Like everything else they had their beginning; and they proceeded by persuasion, exhortation, and example. How is it then that they lose their native mildness, and become morose and intolerant? . By engendering the Church with the State, a sort of mule-animal, capable only of destroying, and not of breeding up, is produced, called The Church established by Law.”( Rights of Man, pg. 16

Source: Britannica, FindLaw, Thomas Paine,

Vaccines: the Government, Media, Pharmaceutical Coverup

Staff Writer, DL Mullan

Parental Rights / Medicine

____________________________________

What if... many parents struggle with this question every time they look at their autistic child. What if... vaccines harmed my child? What if... vaccines caused my child's brain damage? In some cases: What if... vaccines killed my child?

Government and mainstream media have long held that there is no scientific study that links vaccines with any undesirable outcomes. What if... that was not true?

In this report by Ben Swann: Truth in Media: Vaccine Court and Autism, we find that legal jargon and media's suppression may be the government's propaganda machine employed into coercing parents to use vaccines without relating the facts of any negative consequences.

Shouldn't everyone be informed of the facts before implementation of a medical procedure? Obviously, this strategy is not one the government, mainstream media, or the pharmaceutical companies want. Then you have to ask yourself: what if? because no one in the know is going to tell you the truth. 

Be active. Be informed. Look beyond what someone in the medical field, government, or pharmaceutical industry is going to tell you, because these people/entities are not subject to informing anyone of anything. And they are not held to the legal standards of liability.

Isn't time this conduct changed? What if... it was your child?