Immigrants may be denied green cards if they received benefits

The Trump administration has proposed extending the pre-election crackdown on immigration by refusing green cards to legal immigrants who have received government assistance.

According to the new rule released Saturday by the Department of Homeland Security, immigrants may be denied an alleged "legal permanent residence" if they have benefited from certain government benefits or if the government expects that they will do so at l & # 39; future.

History continues below

This represents the latest step taken by White House aide Stephen Miller to drastically reduce legal and illegal immigration to the United States and reflects his firm belief that it will improve Republican chances in elections. mid-term. Targeted benefit programs include the Additional Nutritional Assistance Program (Food Vouchers), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (Social Assistance), Medicaid and Part D of Medicare (Drug Subsidies on order).

The settlement could force millions of low-income families to choose between government assistance and permanent settlement in the United States. Defenders fear that this may limit children's access to food and health care.

This change will primarily affect legal immigrants and their families, as undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most federal benefits.

As a result of draft leaks, the proposed rule of about 400 pages will not target immigrants who have received subsidized health insurance under the Affordable Care Act or the Children's Health Insurance Program. . The rule also bypasses the earned income tax credit, a refundable tax break for low- and moderate-income families.

DHS will allow a 60-day comment period once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. After that, the administration will incorporate the comments before issuing a final rule, a process that could take several months. Among the unresolved issues, there is the possibility of allowing the denial of benefits based on participation in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides low-cost coverage to families who earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid.

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said Saturday that the draft regulation would enact a law aimed at "promoting the self-sufficiency of immigrants and protecting limited resources by ensuring that they do not become burdens" for American taxpayers ".

The media reported earlier this year about Trump's plans to publish the draft regulation, he added, fueling anxiety and misinformation in immigrant communities. .

Even without policy change, immigrants are already refusing government subsidies to buy staple foods and infant formula, lest that prevents them from receiving a green card. POLITICO said earlier this month that local health providers in at least 18 states have registered a 20% drop in registrations – a sign that the mere threat of black immigration can drive people away from the community. 39, government assistance.

The timing of the proposed settlement suggests that the Trump administration believes that new severe restrictions on immigration – even legal immigration – will help to encourage the GOP base to run for mid-term elections. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the administration would not admit more than 30,000 refugees in the coming fiscal year – the lowest level in the history of the resettlement program.

Even at the height of the conservative reaction against the separation of migrant children from their parents, a decision that the administration has finally rescinded, White House officials have continued to view immigration tactics as a message. winning policy in November and the 2020 presidential campaign.

"Democrats believe that there is no consequence for anyone entering illegally in this country. They go too far, and all their hysteria and hypocrisy will turn against them dramatically, "a White House official told POLITICO in June. "Democrats make a giant mistake by getting rid of their last pivotal opportunity to focus on portfolio issues."

The proposed regulation would provide a stronger enforcement mechanism for the long-standing statutory rules prohibiting immigrants "likely to become a public office". The Immigration Act does not explicitly define this term, but states that age, health, family status, financial resources, education and skills must be taken into account. The directives issued in 1999 by President Bill Clinton emphasized that immigrants could be considered a public office if they were "primarily dependent" on government benefits, but narrowly defined these benefits as cash assistance or institutionalized care. long term. This proposed rule broadens this definition considerably.

About one million people become legal permanent residents each year – a generous stipend, according to Hans von Spakovsky, a prominent member of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"We may be reluctant to know who we allow to enter the country," he said. "One of the key factors should be to ensure that legal immigrants who enter are people who can support themselves."

According to the Center on Budget and Political Priorities – an expense the Trump administration and Republicans are seeking to reduce – about a third of the federal budget is spent on health insurance and welfare programs. Most public subsidies are not granted to low-income people but to disabled or elderly people. A report released in May by the Libertarian Cato Institute revealed that immigrants are generally less likely to use public benefits than native-born Americans.

Sonya Schwartz, a senior lawyer with the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center, said the regulations would reduce the number of people allowed to obtain an immigrant visa and discourage the use of public benefits.

"It's a way to reduce people in programs, especially children," she said.

In April, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee sent a letter to White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney asking if the administration adequately considered the economic effects of the proposed settlement.

A preliminary version of the measure released by the Washington Post in March said it would "have no significant economic impact," a statement that Inslee was disputed.

"Given the widespread fear and confusion generated by this proposal," he wrote, "it is inconceivable that the impact on federal programs will not exceed $ 100 million for an economically important rule.

According to the rule, an immigrant could be denied a green card if he or she received government benefits up to 15% of the federal poverty line – currently $ 1,821 for an individual and $ 3,765 for a family of four people. The draft regulation would provide a more generous cushion for immigrant families than an earlier project that set the annual threshold at only 3% of the poverty line.

The rule would apply to benefits received in the 36 months preceding an application, but only after the coming into force of the regulation.

The proposal would count the food vouchers for a public office, but would not receive the Special Supplementary Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). An earlier leaked version of the proposal included WIC in its public office determinations, which alarmed public health advocates as the program has been shown to improve the health outcomes of infants and mothers.

After the POLITICO report found that immigrants were leaving WIC, fearing that this would affect their chances of permanent residence, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said the USDA would investigate the matter.

"It would obviously worry me," said Perdue in an interview with C-SPAN earlier this month. "We will look at this further."

Based on the plan leakage project, the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute estimated in June that the share of non-citizens using benefits that could trigger a "public office" designation would rise from 3% to 47%. The proposed rule has omitted several strict provisions in the draft version, which means that the estimated scope will probably be lower.

"The whole rule is so short-sighted and petty because we know that these nutrition programs are not just incredible sources of nutrition, they improve the health and well-being of children," said Alexandra Ashbrook, director of special projects. . Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger group: "They help people to be productive workers."

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization, reviewed the draft proposal and estimated that it "would likely increase confusion and fear among all legal immigrant families" when it came to the first time. it was using public programs.

Specifically, Kaiser warned of a potential drop in the number of immigrants covered by Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Such a decline would worsen disparities between the health insurance rates of children with immigrant parents and those born in the country.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 8 million citizens with an immigrant parent receive Medicaid or CHIP benefits, with the highest concentrations living in California, Texas and New York.

A series of activists have spent months preparing for the rollout of the proposed regulation and considering running an opposition campaign. The proposal will now be subject to a period of public comment, an opportunity for opponents to launch an attack on the plan.

A coalition led by the National Center for Immigration Law and the DC-based Center for Poverty Reduction and Social Policy will encourage a large number of companies, organizations and officials to submit their comments.

"They must examine each comment submitted and treat it in the preamble. [of the regulation]Said NILC Schwartz. "This administration does things a little differently, but it usually takes a few months, at a minimum."

Prospective regulation would not apply to all immigrants. Refugees and asylums are exempt, as are some victims of domestic violence and children who qualify for "special immigrant miner status", accessible to minors who are abused, neglected or abandoned by a parent.

Foreigners applying for a "temporary protection status" to remain in the United States after a natural disaster or armed conflict in their country of origin will also be exempted, provided they receive a blanket waiver to waive any charge. public.

In addition, the Department of Homeland Security will retain the discretion to waive the requirement of limited categories of visitors and immigrants to the United States.

Applicants for an immigrant visa would be asked to provide affirmative proof of financial stability if they used the public benefits, but the problem would be significant. Green card applicants would not be penalized, for example, if they could demonstrate financial resources or support totaling 250% or more of the federal poverty line – $ 30,350 for an individual and $ 62,750 for a family of four people.

Under the new proposal, potential immigrants who may become public charges may be required to post a bond of at least $ 10,000, which would be returned upon naturalization or when an immigrant leaves the United States.

The proposed rule does not apply to deportability, which would continue to be governed by previous decisions of the Department of Justice.

Rachana Pradhan contributed to the report.