Over 125 congressional Democrats are furiously applying pressure to the Trump administration to toss out a rule that would make it possible to deny an individual a green card if they are using public assistance programs such as Medicaid or food stamps. The proposal from the Department of Homeland Security would trash a current rule that was put in place during former President Joe Biden’s administration that reinstated a narrow definition of the phrase “public charge.”
The 2022 rule defined the term as a person who is “primarily dependent” on government assistance, especially someone who is getting cash assistance to help with income or nursing home care being covered by the government. Non-cash benefits like Medicaid and food stamps didn’t count toward the determination of a public charge under the Biden administration’s rule.
According to the DHS, the new proposal makes the case that the rule places a “straitjacket” on immigration officers and keeps them from considering “all factors and information relevant to an alien’s likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge.” The proposed rule change has angered Democrats who think it would result in the rejection of green cards for individuals who would have otherwise qualified, leading illegal immigrants not to apply for assistance to avoid complications in getting their green cards.
A report from Fox News said that Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), who currently serves as the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, released a statement saying, “This proposal punishes families for caring for their children. It would scare parents away from health care, food assistance, and early education that U.S. citizen children are legally entitled to, putting kids at risk and destabilizing entire communities.”
“Congress never intended public charge to be used this way, and we are demanding DHS withdraw this harmful proposal before it inflicts real and lasting damage on American families,” Espaillat continued. Should the proposal be finalized, there would not be a formal definition of what it means to be a public charge.
As a result, immigration officials would be given broader discretion to take a wider variety of factors into consideration in deciding what constitutes an immigrant being a public charge, a clear move away from the Biden-era policy. A group of 127 Democrats has urged the federal government to toss out the new proposal, saying it would lead to “immediate and widespread uncertainty.”
Lawmakers have made formal comments saying immigration officers would then be forced to make a determination concerning public charges without having guidance to consult in making their decision. “Removing these definitions invites arbitrary decision-making and creates significant risk that adjudicators will rely on factors that Congress has not authorized,” the lawmakers said in a written statement to Homeland Security.
"*" indicates required fields
Democrats also raised concerns that changes to the rule could lead to people being penalized for previously using government assistance programs when the risk for accessing those programs did not previously exist. “Families seeking adjustment of status — including refugees, survivors of domestic violence or trafficking, children who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned, and others whom Congress has long exempted from punitive public charge treatment — cannot navigate a system where the rules shift without warning and where past, lawful conduct that the federal government had stated was permissible could be reinterpreted as a negative factor,” they said in the statement.
“To be very clear, the proposed rule will trigger a massive chilling effect, driving eligible families away from essential assistance in health care, nutrition, childcare, and education, with the heaviest harm falling on U.S. citizen children,” the lawmakers continued.
A second group of Democrats also submitted comments expressing their issues with the plan to change the rule. “Since the term was first codified as an immigration restriction in 1882, it has been consistently interpreted to mean an individual who is, or is likely to become, primarily dependent on the government for his or her care (i.e., someone who is effectively a ‘charge’ or ward of the state),” Rep. Jaime Raskin, D-Md., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the top Democrat on their respective chambers’ Judiciary committees, went on to state in comments signed by several other lawmakers.
Amazingly, this exact same rule was established in 2019 by Donald Trump’s first administration before Biden overturned it. Watch an explanation from back then below: