The Shortcomings of the “Public Charge” Doctrine: Why the DHS Final Rule Should Be Abandoned and Why the United States Should Look to the Progressive Immigration Policies of Sweden

The United States has a longstanding history of denying aliens admission based on a wide range of grounds that we have deemed to demonstrate the alien would be either dangerous to society or a financial burden on the state. “Self-sufficiency” has been a basic principle of US immigration law since the country’s earliest immigration statutes. It is the contention of the Department of Homeland Security that the availability of public benefits can create an incentive for immigration to the United States at a rate that cannot be financially supported by the government. Certain European countries, such as Sweden, see a high rate of immigrant flow into their welfare state. However, in Sweden, the general policy of “self-sufficiency” is not as pertinent, and thus, the general population of Sweden welcomes aliens despite high use of public benefits. In October 2018, DHS proposed a rule under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would expand the scope of the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility. The public charge doctrine dates back to the 1800’s. However, the proposed rule prescribes with specificity how it will determine whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States, by better defining, and expanding, who would fall within this category. Whatever perceived strain that immigrants place on the welfare state should not be reason to prevent aliens from admission or citizenship in the United States. In this paper, I will analyze the history of the public charge doctrine and its intersection with the welfare state, as well as analyze the current use of public benefits by aliens. I will conduct an international comparison to the country of Sweden and analyze its Immigration and social policy. I will use these current findings and international comparisons as arguments against the DHS expansion of “public charge.

Wee deliver interactive

None provided

What is the biological basis of pattern formation of skin lesions?

Pattern recognition is at the heart of clinical dermatology and dermatopathology. Yet, while every practitioner of the art of dermatological diagnosis recognizes the supreme value of diagnostic cues provided by defined patterns of 'efflorescences', few contemplate on the biological basis of pattern formation in and of skin lesions. Vice versa, developmental and theoretical biologists, who would be best prepared to study skin lesion patterns, are lamentably slow to discover this field as a uniquely instructive testing ground for probing theoretical concepts on pattern generation in the human system. As a result, we have at best scraped the surface of understanding the biological basis of pattern formation of skin lesions, and widely open questions dominate over definitive answer. As a symmetry-breaking force, pattern formation represents one of the most fundamental principles that nature enlists for system organization. Thus, the peculiar and often characteristic arrangements that skin lesions display provide a unique opportunity to reflect upon – and to experimentally dissect – the powerful organizing principles at the crossroads of developmental, skin and theoretical biology, genetics, and clinical dermatology that underlie these – increasingly less enigmatic – phenomena. The current 'Controversies' feature offers a range of different perspectives on how pattern formation of skin lesions can be approached. With this, we hope to encourage more systematic interdisciplinary research efforts geared at unraveling the many unsolved, yet utterly fascinating mysteries of dermatological pattern formation. In short: never a dull pattern

The Shortcomings of the “Public Charge” Doctrine: Why the DHS Final Rule Should Be Abandoned and Why the United States Should Look to the Progressive Immigration Policies of Sweden

The United States has a longstanding history of denying aliens admission based on a wide range of grounds that we have deemed to demonstrate the alien would be either dangerous to society or a financial burden on the state. “Self-sufficiency” has been a basic principle of US immigration law since the country’s earliest immigration statutes. It is the contention of the Department of Homeland Security that the availability of public benefits can create an incentive for immigration to the United States at a rate that cannot be financially supported by the government. Certain European countries, such as Sweden, see a high rate of immigrant flow into their welfare state. However, in Sweden, the general policy of “self-sufficiency” is not as pertinent, and thus, the general population of Sweden welcomes aliens despite high use of public benefits. In October 2018, DHS proposed a rule under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that would expand the scope of the “public charge” ground of inadmissibility. The public charge doctrine dates back to the 1800’s. However, the proposed rule prescribes with specificity how it will determine whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States, by better defining, and expanding, who would fall within this category. Whatever perceived strain that immigrants place on the welfare state should not be reason to prevent aliens from admission or citizenship in the United States. In this paper, I will analyze the history of the public charge doctrine and its intersection with the welfare state, as well as analyze the current use of public benefits by aliens. I will conduct an international comparison to the country of Sweden and analyze its Immigration and social policy. I will use these current findings and international comparisons as arguments against the DHS expansion of “public charge.

Methods of assessment of zinc status in humans: a systematic review

Background: Zinc is an essential micronutrient for human health and has numerous structural and biochemical roles. The search for a reliable, sensitive, and specific index of zinc status has been the subject of considerable research, which has resulted in the identification of a number of potentially useful biomarkers. Objective: The objective was to assess the usefulness of biomarkers of zinc status in humans. Design: The methods included a structured search strategy using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE (Ovid), and the Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases; formal inclusion and exclusion criteria; data extraction into an Access database; quality and validity assessment; and meta-analysis. Results: Data on 32 potential biomarkers from 46 publications were analyzed. Plasma zinc concentration responded in a dose-dependent manner to dietary manipulation in adults, women, men, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, and those at low and moderate baseline zinc status. Urinary zinc excretion responded to zinc status overall and in all subgroups for which there were sufficient data. Hair zinc concentration also responded, but there were insufficient studies for subgroup analysis. Platelet, polymorphonuclear cell, mononuclear cell, and erythrocyte zinc concentration and alkaline phosphatase activity did not appear to be effective biomarkers of zinc status. Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that in healthy individuals, plasma, urinary, and hair zinc are reliable biomarkers of zinc status. Further high-quality studies using these biomarkers are required, particularly in infants, adolescents, and immigrant population groups for whom there are limited data. Studies are also required to fully assess a range of additional potential zinc biomarkers