Repugnant?
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-10-15 07:20 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 128 references Ignore this thread
Repugnant?
[Comments enabled]

This is both logical and reasonable -- which is why it can't be allowed.

President Trump signed a proclamation late Friday barring legal immigrants who cannot prove they will have health care coverage or the means to pay for it within 30 days of their arrival to the United States.

Trump said uninsured individuals are a burden on the health care industry and U.S. taxpayers.

"Immigrants who enter this country should not further saddle our health care system, and subsequently American taxpayers, with higher costs," Trump declared.

Beginning Nov. 3, only immigrants covered by approved health insurance or those who can show they can pay for "reasonably foreseeable medical costs" will be allowed entry into the U.S.

How many of you have traveled overseas?

I used to dive -- as in scuba dive -- overseas on occasion.  And I had privately-purchased DAN dive insurance that covered diving-related injuries, specifically including the risk of decompression-related problems.

Why did I buy it?

Because in most nations, if you got bent they would not treat you if you couldn't document a way to pay for it.

Yes, they'd literally let you die in agony (and it is a very bad way to go) or be permanently paralyzed, both of which are frequently the outcome if you don't get prompt treatment -- right now -- if you need it.

For real.

Further, most overseas chambers didn't give a wet crap about "ordinary" health insurance issued in the United States; they didn't recognize it, they wouldn't take your card, they considered it worthless.  DAN dive insurance, on the other hand, was in most but not all places considered "money good."

Mexico is one of those nations, by the way, and it's well-documented that they will not treat you if you can't pay.  Cozumel has a very active diving scene and there are multiple warnings from various tour operators, along with DAN, about exactly this.

So what's wrong with the US insisting that you have valid health coverage -- or some means to pay -- for reasonably-foreseeable health conditions and treatments before allowing you to enter the US?  Every other nation does this.

Nothing.

Except.... suddenly, it has been ruled "repugnant."

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge in New York on Friday temporarily blocked a Trump administration rule that would deny residency to aspiring immigrants deemed likely to require government assistance, calling it “repugnant to the American Dream.”

Bull****.

It is time for the people of this nation to enforce the separation of powers and, if necessary, remove judges by whatever means are necessary and void said alleged "rulings" that violate clearly-established and valid laws, for which there is no contravening position found in either US Code or the Constitution.

The "public-charge" bar is in the law and has been for a very long time.  

(A) In general Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

It does not say "you must prove it", it does not say "you must be entirely dependent upon public assistance" it says that any alien who, in the opinion of a consular officer or the attorney general is likely AT ANY TIME to become a public charge is inadmissible.

No judge has the authority to overturn said law.  There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for a right of entry to the United States, or to remain here for any person who is not a citizenThe Constitution specifically provides for a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" but is otherwise silent on the right of entry into the United States, and as for that rule of Naturalization it delegates that right of regulation entirely to the Congress.

Congress has passed said law in USC 8.  It is binding, as there is no Constitutional right to enter the United States that can be implicated, and therefore there is no justiciable controversy to bring before the court in this regard.

Said "judge" has exactly zero jurisdictional reach to hear this complaint.

Now if there was no public charge bar in US Code then such an Executive Order would be legitimate to bring a case over since we could not have all manner of debate on what is and is not reasonable, given that there is no controlling legal authority.  But said language is explicitly present and the right to make such a determination is left solely to opinion of the Attorney General and consulate officers by that law -- a law that is part of the Naturalization authority explicitly delegated to Congress by the Constitution.

Courts exist to adjudicate justiciable controversies and there isn't one here.

There are legitimate reasons for a just people to decide that there is no longer a legitimate government in a given nation and withdraw their consent by any means necessary.

When judges decide to ignore written statute that grant explicit, legitimate power without contravention in a higher body of law, in this case the Constitution, we are there as a nation.

View with responses (opens new window)