Last Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s “public charge” policy change is legal. This change “dramatically increases the government’s ability to reject green cards for people who are deemed likely to depend on government aid, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and Medicaid,” according to The Hill.
The administration has advertised the rule change as a way to ensure self-sufficiency among immigrants; however, immigration attorneys argue that the rule is both ambiguous and discretionary. It will allow the government to turn away immigrants who have never used public services. In addition, because of this discretion, people can’t know whether accessing specific services will or won’t matter in their individual cases. This has the effect of spreading fear in the immigrant community, causing them to withdraw from trying to access benefits, even for their citizen children.
According to MWEG sister Jen Langi, an immigration attorney at Bighorn Law, the current immigration system already accounts for ensuring that immigrant families can support each other: Citizen and permanent resident sponsors must sign affidavits showing they make enough money to support the person (usually a family member) seeking legal immigrant status.
The now SCOTUS-sanctioned rule, on the other hand, is a discretionary “determination of if [the immigrants] are ‘likely to become a public charge’ in the future,” Langi said. “So even if they’ve never had any public benefits in the past, United States Customs and Immigration Services could still determine that because of [the immigrant’s] age, because of their language abilities, their skills, they’re likely to use public benefits.”
Among the many misconceptions about public benefit use among lawful and unlawful non-citizen residents is how such benefits are being used, if at all. Studies have shown that low-income non-citizen adults and children use fewer public benefits than adults and children who are citizens. In addition, they “collectively contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local coffers each year.”
States will feel the impacts of the new proposal with less participation in Medicaid programs. The National Conference of State Legislators states, “The loss of access to federal public benefits typically increases state and local costs. For example, the loss of Medicaid benefits means individuals will not receive preventive care and will likely seek medical assistance in emergency rooms. The loss of SNAP [Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program] benefits will affect immigrant and citizen children who will come to school hungry. SNAP has been shown to improve test scores and readiness to learn and reduce behavioral problems for these children.”
Yet, among the most disturbing implications of the new rule change is the chilling effect the new proposal will have on the most vulnerable populations. For example, at-risk children and families who could lawfully use public benefits that are well within their rights may choose not to do so out of fear of deportation. The Cato Institute’s research shows that even without the new public charge ruling, “[n]oncitizen children are the least likely to use Medicaid even though the 2009 Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act gave states the power to extend Medicaid and CHIP coverage to all noncitizen children and pregnant women regardless of immigration status.“ Elderly or disabled immigrants seeking citizenship may also be targeted, as both are likely to need public benefits.
The Trump administration has tried unsuccessfully to encourage Congress to pass immigration reform that would prioritize immigrants who are high-income, highly educated, and speak English — things that the administration terms “merit” — and to drastically reduce the number of immigrants allowed in based on family reunification.
Administration critics argue the public charge rule is a backdoor attempt to achieve the same goal, without Congressional approval.
Find more information on the rule change here.
Comentários