<div itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Article”>
<h3 itemprop=”name”>
<!–ARTICLE TITLE START–>
“Public Charge” Rule Blocked Days Before Going Into Effect
<!–END ARTICLE TITLE–>
</h3><h4><i>by <a href=”http://discuss.ilw.com/articles/articles/391881-article-%E2%80%9Cpublic-charge%E2%80%9D-rule-blocked-days-before-going-into-effect-by-aaron-reichlin-melnick#bio”>
<span itemprop=”author” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Person”>
<span itemprop=”name”>
<!–AUTHOR NAME START–>
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
<!–END AUTHOR NAME–>
</span></span>
</a></i></h4><br/>
<span itemprop=”articleBody”>
<div class=”post-content entry-content”>
<div class=”post-content entry-content”>
<div class=”at-above-post addthis_tool” data-url=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/10/14/public-charge-rule-blocked-days-before-going-into-effect/”></div><p>The Trump administration suffered another immigration blow in court last Friday. The new <u><a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/08/13/public-charge-rule-wealth-test-immigrants/”>“public charge” rule</a></u> set to go into effect Tuesday, October 15, was blocked in three separate rulings by judges around the country.</p>
<p><span id=”more-32959″></span></p>
<p>Courts in New York, San Francisco, and Seattle all issued rulings halting the implementation of the rule. This was largely seen as one of the Trump administration’s most significant attacks on legal immigration.</p>
<p>In New York, federal judge George B. Daniels <u><a href=”https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6467737-PublicChargeOpinion.html”>called the public charge</a></u> rule “a new agency policy of exclusion in search of justification” and “repugnant to the American Dream.”</p>
<p>He condemned the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to provide “any reasonable explanation” for changing the definition of public charge and issued a nationwide injunction blocking the policy.</p>
<p>Since 1882, federal law has banned immigrants likely to become a “public charge” from immigrating to the United States. Although Congress has never defined the term, for generations the government interpreted the term to mean someone who is “primarily dependent” on public financial support.</p>
<p><a href=”https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2002/09/09/fr26my99N.pdf”>Since 1999</a>, only those individuals who received more than 50% of their income from federal cash assistance programs were determined to be a public charge.</p>
<p>But in 2018, the Trump administration proposed a broad redefinition of public charge which would find that someone was a public charge for receiving non-cash supplemental benefits like Medicaid or food stamps. The administration declared that these rules were needed to promote immigrant “self-sufficiency.”</p>
<p><a href=”https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/final-rule-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility”>In final regulations issued in August</a>, the Trump administration declared that any individual who received <em>any amount</em> of certain benefits for “an aggregate of 12 months in a 36 month period” would be deemed a public charge. Under this new test, even disabled immigrants who relied on Medicaid to get a job and work would be declared public charges.</p>
<p>Within hours of Judge Daniel’s ruling, a second federal judge in San Francisco also <u><a href=”https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6467762/10-11-19-California-Public-Charge-Opinion.pdf”>issued an order blocking</a></u> the public charge rule. In her order, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton criticized DHS for departing from the long-accepted definition of “public charge” and for refusing to calculate the rule’s potential impacts on public health.</p>
<p>Judge Hamilton noted that under DHS’s new test, a person could be deemed a public charge for “receiving less than 50 cents per day” in food stamps. “At no point over the long history described above could that have qualified one as a public charge.”</p>
<p>Hours later, Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson in Seattle <u><a href=”https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/publicchargePI.pdf”>issued a third order</a></u> blocking the public charge test. Like the first two decisions, Judge Peterson found that the Trump administration had expanded the definition of public charge far beyond what was allowed by law. She also criticized DHS for departing from its limited role to set policy by passing a rule aimed at reducing healthcare costs.</p>
<p>On top of these three rulings, federal judges in Maryland and Illinois are still considering whether to issue their own injunctions blocking the rule.</p>
<p>Despite many cheering the successful battle in court to stop the DHS public charge rule, these victories could soon be overshadowed by other developments.</p>
<p>On November 3rd, the <u><a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/10/09/trump-healthcare-ban-legal-immigration/”>President’s new travel ban</a></u> related to healthcare benefits is set to go into effect. Although it’s still too early to determine the full effect of the ban, early estimates suggest it could block <u><a href=”https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/health-insurance-test-green-card-applicants-could-sharply-cut-future-us-legal-immigration”>as many as 375,000</a></u> legal immigrants a year.</p>
<p>Also, on Tuesday, the State Department <u><a href=”https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/11/2019-22399/visas-ineligibility-based-on-public-charge-grounds”>is set to go forward with a plan</a></u> to apply the same public charge standards just blocked in court to all visa applicants outside the United States. Should either of these policies be allowed to stand, the Trump administration could get its wish of more limited legal immigration.</p>
<!– AddThis Advanced Settings above via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Advanced Settings below via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Share Buttons above via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Share Buttons below via filter on the_content –><div class=”at-below-post addthis_tool” data-url=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/10/14/public-charge-rule-blocked-days-before-going-into-effect/”></div><!– AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content –><!– AddThis Related Posts below via filter on the_content –><div class=”at-below-post-recommended addthis_tool”></div><!– AddThis Related Posts generic via filter on the_content –> </div>
<p>This post originally appeared on <a href=”http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/10/14/public-charge-rule-blocked-days-before-going-into-effect/#.XadwtOhKiUk” target=”_blank”>Immigration Impact</a>. Reprinted with permission.</p>
</span>
<hr/><h4>
<a name=”bio”></a>
About The Author<br/>
</h4>
<!–AUTHOR BIO START–>
<p>
<b>Aaron Reichlin-Melnick</b> is a Policy Analyst at the American Immigration Council, where he works primarily on immigration court issues and the intersection of immigration law and policy. He previously worked as a Staff Attorney at the Council, working on impact litigation, Freedom of Information Act litigations, and practice advisories. Prior to joining the Council, he was an Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow placed as a Staff Attorney at the Immigration Law Unit of The Legal Aid Society in New York City, representing immigrants placed in removal proceedings because of a prior criminal conviction. Aaron holds a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center and a B.A. in Politics and East Asian Studies from Brandeis University.
</p>
<!–END AUTHOR BIO–>
<p><hr/>
<div class=”ilwFinePrint”>The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of <span itemprop=”publisher” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Organization”>
<span itemprop=”name”>ILW.COM</span></span>.</div></p>
</div>
{$inline_image
