'Public charge' requirement for new immigrants hits a roadblock

Healthcare workers protest the public charge rule for immigrants.

A federal judge in New York issued two strongly worded rulings on Wednesday that put a temporary freeze on theTrump administration restrictive immigration policies.

The measures, which are now on hold, had broadened the grounds under which immigrants could be considered "public charges," a label that can harm the chances of obtaining either a green card or entry to the United States.

In the two blistering decisions, Judge George Daniels of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York says the national health emergency from the coronavirus pandemic provides grounds for granting the preliminary injunctions.

In a decision that applies nationwide, Judge George Daniels of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York,  blocked the implementation of a rule issued last year by the Department of Homeland Security. The Trump administration's rule widened the definition of a "public charge" — historically, a person entirely dependent on public aid for survival — that can be used for denying a change in immigration status.

Under the DHS' revised definition, any non-U.S. citizen or legal resident who receives government assistance such as food stamps, public housing vouchers, Medicaid or welfare payments for 12 months or more over a three-year period can be considered a public charge.

Daniels writes in his blistering decision that the coronavirus pandemic has rendered obsolete a Jan. 27 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.that blocked an Oct. 2019 injunction issued by Daniels against the broadened public charge rule, but it also allowed for further litigation against the measure in the lower court.

"Much has significantly changed since Jan. 27," Daniels wrote in his 31-page ruling. The Health and Human Services secretary declared a national public health emergency four days after the decision by SCOTUS.

"What were previously theoretical harms have proven to be true," Daniels added. "We no longer need to imagine the worst-case scenario; we are experiencing its dramatic effects in very real time."

Although DHS began implementing its public charge rule in February, because of the coronavirus, DHS suspended the rule in the interest of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

"Doctors and other medical personnel, state and local officials, and staff at non-profit organizations have all witnessed immigrants refusing to enroll in Medicaid or other publicly funded health coverage, or forgoing testing or treatment for COVID-19, out of fear that accepting such insurance or care will increase their risk of being labeled a "public charge," continued Daniels.

"Even if immigrants act in part on mistaken belief,' the judge wrote, "the Supreme Court has recognized injury where the plaintiff's harms are based on the 'predictable effect of Government action on the decisions of third parties,' even if such decisions are 'motivated by unfounded fears.'"

In a separate ruling, Daniels blocks another Trump rule that required would-be immigrants to have health insurance.

"The Proclamation directs immigrants to purchase limited or temporary insurance plans that technically satisfy the Proclamation's requirements but do not actually provide comprehensive coverage," Daniels wrote in the 52-page ruling. "As a result, immigrants will be left underinsured and at greater risk of incurring uncompensated costs that will ultimately fall on and burden local and state governments."

An appeal will most likely occur with hopes that the cases go the U.S. Supreme Court where conservative justices have the majority.

Trump has made his anti-immigration policies a major part of his first term in office and a key element of his 2020 campaign against Democratic challenger Joe Biden because they stir up nativists and white supremacists, large parts of his base.

'Public charge' rule goes into effect Monday

New immigrants face new obstacles to citizenship.

ASAM NEWS

A ruling from the US Supreme Court late Friday clears the way for the Trump administration to make it harder for legal immigrants who are likely to apply for government benefits to get a green card, an important step towards citizenship.

Known by its critics as the wealth test, the policy discourages people seeking legal citizenship from applying for housing assistance, medicaid, food stamps and other public benefits. The court's decision allows it to go into effect Monday, Feb. 24.

The high court lifted a national injunction in January against the public benefit, but Friday it removed the last legal obstacle from its implementation in all 50 states beginning Monday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a blunt dissenting opinion of the 5-4 split decision blasting the five justices for making its ruling despite a lower court in Illinois being scheduled to take up the Illinois-specific stay this week.

“Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern. The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not,” wrote Sotomayor, who voted in the minority. “The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Know your rights

“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it,” she concluded.

The White House applauded the decision, according to the Economic Times.

“This final rule will protect hardworking American taxpayers, safeguard welfare programs for truly needy Americans, reduce the Federal deficit, and re-establish the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largesse of United States taxpayers,” said White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she would “roll back” the public-charge policy if elected.

“Millions of children could lose their health care coverage because of the Trump administration’s cruel public charge rule,” Warren said.

Contrary to the popular model minority stereotype, in 2015, eight of 19 Asian American groups had poverty rates higher than the US average thus most likely to use some form of government aid such as food stamps or rental assistance.

Among those subgroups, Pakistani Americans (15.8 per cent), Nepali Americans (23.9 per cent), Bangladeshi Americans (24.2 per cent), and Bhutanese Americans (33.3 per cent) had the highest poverty rates among South Asian American groups, according to the PEW Center.

As much as 69% of the more than 5 million individuals who received a green card over the past five years have at least one negative factor against them under the new rule, and thus might have been denied immigration benefits had the new rule been in effect.

Late last month, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) joined together to oppose the public charge rule.

“Our immigration system has long been built on the principle that immigrants from all walks of life make our country better. And despite the false claims made to justify this public charge rule, the data shows that immigrants help grow the economy and use fewer government resources than native-born individuals. Regardless, the Trump Administration has spent the past three years creating an immigration system that is cruelly stacked against immigrants of color and the public charge rule is no exception,” the groups stated.

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.

AAPI health advocates blast Supreme Court's 'public charge' ruling

The US Supreme Court’s decision Jan. 28 allowing the Trump administration to begin implementing the Department of Homeland Security’s revised public charge regulation continues to draw strong reactions from health agencies serving the AAPI communities.

The SCOTUS decision doesn't end the debate. Multiple cases challenging the rule continue in the lower courts. 

In a 5-4 decision along party lines, the Supreme Court temporarily lifted a nationwide injunction blocking the rule from taking effect. The rule threatens the health and wellbeing of Asian American and Pacific Islander immigrants and all families.

Three nationwide organizations released the following statements in response to the High Court's decision:

The National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA):

“Decisions such as this continues to signal to the rest of the world that America is no longer a place that welcomes immigrants. Unfortunately, once again the highest court in our country has given the green light to government-sanctioned xenophobia. The public charge rule put forth by the Trump Administration ignores the plight of many Asian American and Pacific Islander families, and by forcing them to choose between receiving public assistance or their legal pathway, they face poverty, poor health, and uncertainty. NCAPA is disappointed in the decision and will continue to advocate for the American values that brought our communities here in the first place because that is what we all deserve.”

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations (AAPCHO), Executive Director, Jeffrey Caballero:

“AAPCHO and our member community health centers have already seen the chilling effects on our patients. They are foregoing essential services, disenrolling from benefits they are eligible for, or just not showing up to receive the care they need out of confusion and fear. No one should sacrifice their quality of life or put their loved one’s health in jeopardy out of fear of being separated from their families. AAPCHO condemns this rule and the immoral, unjust policies that discriminate against immigrants who contribute much to our country. AAPCHO will continue to work to ensure better access to affordable, high quality, and culturally and linguistic care to prevent detrimental health outcomes. With our partners, we'll fight against the rule in the courts, in Congress, and at the ballot box.”

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF), Executive Vice President, Juliet K. Cho:

“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court is permitting the public charge rule to move forward. The public charge rule is antithetical to who we are as a country and targets, primarily, hard-working immigrant families of color. While the regulation directly impacts only a small number of people, the rule has already led to many families and individuals dis-enrolling from otherwise eligible health programs. Standing in solidarity with all of our partners, APIAHF will continue to organize community action against the Trump administration’s public charge rule and protect our immigrant families from unjust policies. 2020 is a critical election year, where every vote matters. It is important, more than ever, to empower our communities in exercising their right to vote for leaders who support the American values we believe in.”

RELATED: SCOTUS temporarily allows 'public charge' to take effect

Supreme Court allows temporary implementation of 'public charge' restrictions for immigrants

FACEBOOK / NYIC

Members of the New York Immigration Coalition vow to fight the 'public charge' rule in the courts. 

Any hope that the Supreme Court would exercise its independence from the executive branch disappeared Monday as the court ended the injunction that prevented Donald Trump's so-called "public charge" rule to take effect.

Immigrants may have to choose between food for their families or keeping their eligibility to become US citizens.

The US Supreme Court today temporarily lifted nationwide court orders blocking implementation of the Trump administration’s public charge regulation, allowing this widely opposed wealth test to take effect while several cases challenging the legality of the rule make their way through the courts. 

“Nearly every sector of society has gone on record in opposition to this morally repugnant and legally dubious regulation, and for good reason: its implementation will hurt countless of immigrant and citizen families, and we’re all worse off as a result,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

Monday’s 5-4 ruling with the conservatives in the majority, will force countless immigrants to forgo health care, food stamps, and housing assistance; it will drive families to illness, starvation, and homelessness; and it is impossible to square with federal law.

“DHS has always been confident that an objective judiciary would reverse the injunctions imposed on the agency so that we are able to enforce long-standing law passed by a bipartisan Congress,” said Ken Cuccinelli, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the DHS Deputy Secretary. 

“Self-sufficiency and self-reliance are key American values not to be litigiously dismissed, but to be encouraged and adopted by the next generation of immigrants. We plan to fully implement this rule in 49 states and are confident we will win the case on the merits,” he said in a statement.

The only state not affected is Illinois because their TRO is based on a separate legal action.

The regulation that will go into effect threatens the health, nutrition, and housing of families — overwhelmingly families of color — all over the country. 

Three lower courts agreed that the Trump guidelines did not follow the law and ruled that the rules could not be implemented while the cases wind its way through the courts. The Trump administration leapfrogged the appeals courts and went directly to the Supreme Court  dominated by GOP justices.

MORE INFORMATION:

• USICS defines "public charge"
• Are you affected by this ruling?

The multiple lawsuits challenging the regulation will still have to be decided by their merits, and the regulation may be overturned by courts hearing those cases. However, considering the aggressiveness of the administration, if those courts rule against the restrictive guidelines, it is likely the DOJ would appeal those decisions right up to the Supreme Court.

The rule affects legal immigrants who may or may not be waiting to become US citizens. "This cruel and un-American plan penalizes those who are in the U.S. legally," said Rep. Grace Meng, D-NY. "It will have dire consequences for hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants, mostly children and families who require critical safety net programs for health care, food and other basic and daily necessities."

The implemented guidelines are much narrower than earlier attempts by the Trump administration to deny any sort of public benefits to immigrants. The assistance affected is specifically food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid. It is not certain that the SCOTUS ruling will affect those who seek health care through the American Care Act, one of chief Obama-era targets of the Trump government.

Agencies working with immigrant communities fear that people will drop out of the assistance programs in order to maintain their eligibility for a green card that moves their status a step closer to citizenship.

“The true effect, and therefore, the true intent behind the Administration’s public charge rule is to create a climate of fear among immigrant families, and it’s working," said Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-HI. "I’ve heard from a number of hardworking, taxpaying immigrants in Hawaii, many not even subject to the rule, who are afraid to see their doctor or access essential services.” 

UPDATED Jan. 28, 10 a.m. to include statement from DHS.

Court continues injunction against Trump's 'public charge' rule

The Trump administration's continuing attempts to dissuade people from coming to the US hit another roadblock when a federal appeals court allowed an injunction against the implementation of a public charge policy for legal immigrants.

"Today's ruling enables millions of families to continue their journey of legal immigration. As an immigrant who came over for the pursuit of the American Dream, it's encouraging to see that our borders will not be open to only those who are wealthy," said Xiao Wang told CBS Tuesday (Jan. 7). Wang is co-founder of Boundless, a business that assists clients through  the country's immigration process.

By applying the public charge rule to any immigrant who uses any form of government assistance such as food stamps, housing assistance of SSI, the administration hoped to limit immigration. However, that proposal was blocked nationwide by federal court injunctions in Maryland and New York.

The decision by a three-judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan to maintain the nationwide injunction blocking the so-called "public charge" rule is a victory for critics of the proposed regulation, which they say would disproportionately affect low-income immigrants and people of color seeking to move to the US.

"Xenophobia has no place in our country, let alone our laws,"said Laboni Hoq, litigation director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles.

2019 Review: Trump immigration policies shake up, wake up Asian Americans

If there is one thing that the diverse AAPI communities have in common, it is their almost universal opposition to the persistent attempts of the White House-driven policies intending to reduce immigration from Asia.

"The administration has literally every month enacted new fundamental restrictions on the rights of immigrants, and in particular, the rights of asylum-seekers at the border," the ACLU's immigration specialist Lee Gelernt told CBS News.

While the dire conditions at the US-Mexico border receives most of the media attention, immigration from Asia, now the source of most of US-bound immigrants, is affected by the hardline policies proposed by the Trump administration.

These policies or proposals include:

• The end of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in which thousands of AAPI young people who were brought into the US illegally by their parents. DACA allows them to stay and work in the US where they were raised

• A reduction of who qualifies as family threatens to separate siblings and parents of new immigrants. About 70% to 80% of Asian immigrants come to the US through family-based immigration.

• Rules to look into would-be immigrants' social media use to make sure they are not anti-Trumpers;

• A measure to make sure that visa applicants would not be a financial burden to the US by becoming a "public charge," by using any form of government assistance including SSI, food stamps or a school's free lunch program;

• Raising the fees -- almost double -- for greencard holders to become citizens;

• New limits of H1-B visas that allows workers with special skills needed in the US, to move to head of immigration que; and student visas that permit foreign students to study here and in many cases, after their studies, remain in the US;

• The deportation of refugees from Southeast Asia refugees who might have run afoul of the law for even minor infractions such as a DUI or possession of small amounts of marijuana. Although they served their sentences, ICE often awaits to detain them as soon as they step out of jail;

• And for good measure -- perhaps simply because a rule was approved by President Obama -- the administration seeks to eliminate the so-called parole program that allowed family members to join and care for elderly Filipino WWII vets who were granted US citizenship.

Although most of policies have been mired in the court system because of legal challenges filed by various states and immigration advocates, the government keeps appealing them hoping that they will eventually make their way to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court.

Many people believe, including AAPI members of Congress, slowing the numbers of immigrants of color to keep America white, is at the heart of the Trump anti-immigrant policies. Hundreds of congressmembers have written a letter asking Trump to fire Stephen Miller, the alleged white supremacist who is the mastermind behind the reforms restricting immigration.  

"What has been going on at the border is so visual and so visceral that I think it's the thing that has absolutely dominated everybody's attention with respect to immigration issues," León Rodríguez, the last U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) director under President Obama, told CBS News. "A lot of these other issues are very bureaucratic, very technical but very impactful for the families that are affected."

"The overall thrust of what the administration has been doing is pretty much at every turn to restrict immigration, both in terms of the overall numbers of people who are able to acquire immigration benefits, but also as to any individual applicant or petitioner, to make it infinitely more difficult for them to attain those benefits," Rodríguez said.


2019 REVIEW 
Part 1: AAPI political visibility explodes on nat'l scene
Part 2: Affirmative action debate exposes schism in Asian American community
Part 4: Hollywood 'discovers Asians

Trump immigration plans temporarily blocked

NEW YORK IMMIGRATION COALITION

Several Trump immigration proposals were dealt severe blows Friday.

Trump administration continuing proposals to limit immigration were dealt several blows Friday when the courts blocked a proposal to reject those would-be immigrants who might receive public assistance and another judge blocked the diversion of military funds to build a border wall and California passed a law to ban private prisons detaining immigrants.

Federal courts in New York, Washington state and California blocked a proposed rule that would've made it easier for the Trump administration to reject green card and visa applications filed by low-income immigrants whom the government determines are or might become a burden on U.S. taxpayers.

In addition, another judge blocked the diversion of Pentagon funding to build Trump's border wall and California passed a law that would phase out private prisons, including those holding immigrants waiting for their hearings or waiting to be deported.

“It is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity, success through hard work and upward mobility,” said US District Judge George Daniels in New York. “Immigrants have always come to this country seeking a better life for themselves and their posterity — with or without help, most succeed.”

“This new definition essentially changes the public charge assessment into a benefits issue, rather than an inquiry about self-subsistence, such that any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charge,” he wrote as he issued a issued a temporary nationwide injunction.

“Receipt of a benefit, however, does not necessarily indicate that the individual is unable to support herself.”

“There is no logic to this framework,” he added.

A federal judge in Washington state also blocked the regulation nationwide, while a third district court judge in San Francisco said the administration could not enforce the rule within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The proposed rule would have  gone into effect Tuesday. It imposed an unprecedented test to assess future benefits use that will penalize immigrant children, immigrant seniors, and all immigrants who are low-income, limited English proficient, and lack access to private health insurance, educational opportunities, and credit. 

According to a report by Migration Policy Institute, more than 941,000 recent green card holders, including 300,000 from Asian countries, would likely have been excluded if the rule had already been in effect when they applied.

The Trump administration has intentionally sought to scare immigrants and their families from using public benefits. Since the rule change was proposed a year ago, over 13% of immigrant adults are reported to have dropped their use of public benefits out of fear of risking their future green card status. 

The outcry from immigration advocates was almost immediate and drew over 260,000 comments.

"Public benefits are essential to helping families thrive," said Asian American Advancing Justice in a statement. "Weighing the likelihood of future benefit use, along with discriminatory factors such as English language proficiency and the age of an aspiring citizen, is unjust. The administration has intentionally sought to scare immigrants and their families from using public benefits."

The proposed rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification," Judge Daniels wrote in his ruling. "It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upwards mobility."

SCREEN CAPTURE / PBS

Workers update an existing wall on the US's southern border with Mexico.

Another federal judge ruled Friday that Trump violated federal law when he used his declaration of a national emergency to get millions for building a wall on the southern border.

Federal District Court Judge David Briones said the president's order violated a provision of the budget law approved by Congress which said "none of the funds made available in this or any other appropriation may be used to increase" the funding for the wall project.

"The president's proclamation is unlawful," the Texas judge wrote.

In January the president asked for $5.7 billion to build "a steel barrier for the Southwest border," but Congress approved only $1.375 billion. In February, By declaring a national emergency Trump was able to order divert money intended for Pentagon construction projects for his pet project.

The DOJ will likely appeal the Texas ruling.

Also, California's Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 32 into law, which, by 2028 will eliminate the role for-profit companies play in the state’s carceral system, effectively banning private prisons statewide.

Under this law, private prisons in the state would be phased out by 2028 and all other private facilities—including immigration detention centers—would be unable to renew their contracts and eventually be phased out as well. 

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), an advocacy group that supported AB 32’s passage in the California State Legislature, commends Gov. Newsom, Assembly member Rob Bonta, who sponsored the bill, and the grassroots organizations that supported this historic bill that disavows private prison companies.

____________________________________________________

Trump''s 'public charge' rule challenged by a bevy of lawsuits

Immigrants sworn in as new US citizens.

To no one's surprise, a host of lawsuits is challenging Donald Trump's proposed "public charge" law that would disqualify anyone, including legal immigrants, from US citizenship if they are using any government-funded assistance.

Nonprofits serving immigrant communities and advocates for racial equity, health, children, farmworkers, and working families Friday (Aug. 16) filed suit to block implementation of the Trump administration’s “public charge” regulation, which threatens millions of immigrant families — disproportionally families of color. 

“The public charge regulation is an attack on the culturally diverse families we serve, threatening their health and their very lives,” said Jane Garcia, chief executive officer of La Clínica de La Raza. “We will stand with our patients and their families and fight this.”

The lawsuit, La Clínica de la Raza et al. v. Trump et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It asked the court to declare the regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unlawful and unconstitutional. DHS finalized the regulation on August 14, 2019.

Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles is one of the advocacy groups that have joined the suit. 

"This expansion of the rule is part and parcel of the administration's crusade to instill fear in immigrant communities of color,” said Laboni Hoq, litigation director at Advancing Justice - LA. “By including criteria such as English language proficiency as a negative factor for obtaining permanent residency, the administration is telling immigrants that they are not welcome here.  

"Xenophobia has no place in our country, let alone our laws." said Hoq.

Later in the day, California and several other states joined an earlier suit filed by San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties.

“This cruel policy would force working parents and families across the nation to forego basic necessities like food, housing, and healthcare out of fear. That is simply unacceptable,” California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

The state's suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and its other plaintiffs also include Maine, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. They argue that the rule violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.

Trump's new regulation targets programs that serve whole families — Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Section 8 housing assistance — meaning its impact will extend well beyond immigrants directly affected. As a result, experts warn, the regulation will result in increases in hunger, unmet health and housing needs, and poverty. Because affected immigrants are overwhelmingly immigrants of color, the rule is also expected to widen racial disparities. 

Independent analysts estimate that the regulation threatens millions of people. A significant portion of those threatened by the regulation were born in the U.S., and nearly a third of those are children.

In addition to La Clínica de la Raza and Advancing Justice-LA, the advocates' suit was joined by African Communities Together, the California Primary Care Association, the Central American Resource Center, the Council on American Islamic Relations - California, Farmworker Justice, the Korean Resource Center, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Maternal and Child Health Access. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Immigration Law Center,  the National Health Law Program and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

The complaint argues that the regulation was motivated by racial bias against nonwhite immigrants and asks the court to strike it down as a violation of Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As indicators of a motivating racial animus, the complaint cites the administration’s acknowledgement that the policy will have a disparate impact on families of color, Trump’s own racist statements, and his administration’s other racially-biased policies.

“Donald Trump pushed to execute innocent Black men wrongly accused of murder. He called the white supremacists in Charlottesville ‘very fine people.’ He slurred Black immigrants from Haiti and Nigeria. And he froze or cancelled protected status for immigrants from majority-Black countries. Donald Trump’s words and his actions have consistently targeted Black families,” said Amaha Kassa, founder and executive director of African Communities Together.

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families, and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white. Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration, or whether or not people are wealthy,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Plaintiffs also assert that the regulation violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The complaint also argues that the regulation is invalid because the official who approved its publication, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, was appointed in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

More than 260,000 public comments were submitted on the draft regulation last fall, the vast majority in opposition. 

“This rule is a scare tactic designed to create fear and confusion in immigrant communities. The devastating effects will reach even further than the text of the rule itself, as immigrants and their families forgo vital food, housing, and health care services,” said Jane Perkins, legal director at the National Health Law Program.

_________________________________________________________________

'Public charge' proposals would harm immigrant and POC

Another day, another Donald Trump policy against immigrants. A proposed rule would severely cut back the number of immigrants coming to the US, especially those  from Asia and Latin America, which have waits over two decades for the first step to become an American.

Monday (Aug. 12) the US Department of Homeland Security released a final rule making sweeping changes to the "public charge" test that will disproportionately block immigrants of color from obtaining lawful permanent residency, also known as green cards, inhibit immigrant workers and foreign students from extending or changing their visas, and undermine the ability of green card holders to re-enter the US if they have spent more than 6 months abroad.

Immigration authorities currently ask green card applicants to prove they won't be a burden on the country, but the new regulation explands the what public assistance programs that would disqualify immigrants, including green card holders awaiting citizenship. It would require caseworkers to consider the use of government housing, food and medical assistance such as the widely used Section 8 housing vouchers and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The new rule will impose an unprecedented test to assess future benefits use that will penalize legal immigrants, especially immigrant seniors and all immigrants who are low-income, lack English language proficiency, have chronic medical conditions, and lack access to private health insurance, educational opportunities, and credit. 

According to a report by Migration Policy Institute, more than 941,000 recent green card holders, including approximately 300,000 from Asian countries, would likely have been excluded if the rule had already been in effect when they applied.

Despite the widespread outcry that led to over 260,000 public comments in the months following the proposed rule, the changes to the public charge criteria have been enacted and will go into effect in 60 days after formal publication scheduled for Wednesday, Aug. 14, which means it would go into effect Oct. 15.

However, the new law would likely face a slew of legal challenges that would most probably delay enaction into 2020 if survives the court battles.

“We strongly condemn the Trump administration’s changes to the public charge rule. This racist policy seeks to dramatically undermine the family-based immigration system that has been the backbone of our country and instead prioritizes wealthy immigrants. The public charge rule change continues the administration’s inhumane assault on immigrant families by increasing denials of green card applicants," said the Asian Americans Advancing Justice in a statement.

Hours after the administration announced its intention,  Santa Clara and San Francisco Counties which filed the first lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Their legal challenge is the first of numerous court complaints civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups have vowed to mount against the so-called "public charge" regulation, which they believe will penalize low-income immigrants and their U.S. citizen children.

A report by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the UC Berkeley Labor Center and California Food Policy Advocates, found that California’s economy could lose $2.8 billion and up to 17,700 jobs because of changes to the “public charge” rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus – Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) Rep. Judy Chu, Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Rep. Karen Bass, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) Rep. Joaquin Castro – released the following statement on the final public charge rule:

“The Trump Administration’s new public charge rule is yet another cruel attempt to frighten and intimidate immigrant communities. It contradicts years of federal policy by restructuring our immigration system so that it favors the wealthy over communities of color and working families. Moreover, it relies on the false narrative that immigrants are a ‘burden’ on our country and ignores the fact that our country was built and continues to grow because of the contributions and sacrifices of immigrant families. The intent of this rule is to disregard that tradition and devalue the contributions of immigrants from all walks of life.

“This rule is detrimental to immigrant families who will now be forced to choose between taking care of their basic needs or having a future in America. We have already heard heartbreaking reports of immigrant families disenrolling from programs their families need because they are concerned that using benefits will jeopardize their immigration status," continued the statement.

“The Trump administration unveiled yet another heartless plan to block immigrants and people with disabilities from legally immigrating to the United States. The president effectively declared that you could be too old, too young, too poor, or too sick to come to this country," said Claudia Center, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Disability Rights Project.

“The proposed rule grows out of the absurd assumption that people with disabilities cannot be productive, valued members of our society. This is not only incredibly cruel, it’s illegal. The Rehabilitation Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the basis of disability, whether or not they’re a citizen," she continued in her statement

In anticipation of the administration's action, in June Rep. Chu and 36 cosponsors today introduced a bill, the No Federal Funds for Public Charge Act, that would prohibit the use of federal funds to implement the Trump administration’s proposed “public charge” regulation. The bill, H.R. 3222, would create a barrier to the Trump administration’s attempts to vastly expand the number of people who may be deemed ineligible for lawful permanent residence (a “green card”) based on their household income, use of certain essential government services, and other criteria.

Under the current quota system, high-volume immigration countries like India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines experience the longest U.S. visa wait times.

_____________________________________________________________

Chu's bill would prevent federal dollars from going to Trump's 'public charge' proposal

TWITTER / JUDY CHU

Rep. Judy Chu at a press conference to introduce her bill.

A bill was introduced Wednesday (June 12) intended to stop in its tracks, a proposal by the Trump administration to deny visas and deport immigrants or green card holders if they use U.S. public assistance.

Rep. Judy Chu, D-CA, introduced H.R. 7052, the No Federal Funds for Public Charge Act, to prevent any federal funds from being used to implement Donald Trump’s proposed “public charge” rule. The rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on September 22, 2018, greatly expands the list of programs that could be considered when an immigrant is applying for a green card. 

The rule change could cause individuals to disenroll from public benefits like nutrition assistance and healthcare out of fear it could make it more difficult to be reunited with loved ones, even though many of these immigrants have a legal right to these services to which they contribute through their taxes. 

“The so-called ‘public charge’ rule is a blight," said Chu in a press conference by the Congressional Tri-Caucus – composed of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) – and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).

“In one of the more outrageous, callous, and openly xenophobic proposals of this administration,"

She continued to say that Trump and Stephen Miller devised an "immigration policy that would leave hungry children behind while doing nothing to address our country’s real immigration challenges at all. As always, their approach to immigration starts and ends at attacking and isolating immigrants."

Doreena Wong, Health Access Project Director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles said: "This expansion of the public charge provision is concerning because of its potential disproportionate impact on communities of color. Not only has it already cast a chilling effect on immigrant families, but it seeks to fundamentally transform our immigration system, shifting away from the long-standing priority of reunifying families from diverse parts of the world to privileging the white and the wealthy."

If the Trump proposal is implemented, it would dismantle family-based immigration and undo longstanding policies. The proposed rule threatens to deny immigrant families the opportunity to obtain a green card or enter the U.S. if they participate in benefit programs offered by the government, such as critical health care, housing assistance food support or early childhood education. 

Opponents like Chu and immigration advocates say the proposed rule targets immigrant community members who are low-income, have limited English proficiency, or have disabilities. 

It would have a devastating impact on visa applicants from Asia, now millions of our community members.

"It creates two distinct classes of taxpayers, creating an unfair “pay-to-play” system," said Chu. "Benefits like SNAP are proven at reducing poverty and improving future achievement, but now, Trump is trying to stigmatize the program – and others like it –so that immigrants will be afraid to use it. Immigrants are our neighbors and co-workers, and play a vital role in our communities. This proposed rule only makes their lives more difficult solely based on where they were born. 

"It is a hateful policy devoid of merit or morality and not one dollar of federal money should be used to implement it, should it become finalized. I’m proud that so many of my colleagues have joined me to stop Trump’s attempt to weaponize federal policy in his hateful war on immigrants,” Chu continued.

___________________________________________________________________