{"id":23477,"date":"2020-08-12T13:40:59","date_gmt":"2020-08-12T17:40:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=23477"},"modified":"2020-08-12T14:26:35","modified_gmt":"2020-08-12T18:26:35","slug":"ny-judge-public-charge-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/08\/12\/ny-judge-public-charge-rule\/","title":{"rendered":"New York Judge Blocks \u2018Public-Charge\u2019 Rule, Again"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

U.S. District Judge George Daniels clearly has a thing about the Trump administration\u2019s public charge <\/a>rule for immigrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the second time in less than a year, Daniels knocked down <\/a>administration efforts to strengthen the rules. Though his judicial district is confined to Manhattan, Daniels\u2019s decision will affect public charge policy nationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the revised definition, any non-U.S. citizen who\nreceives government assistance such as food stamps, public housing vouchers,\nMedicaid or welfare payments for 12 months or more over a three-year period can\nbe considered a public charge ineligible for legal presence in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began\napplying the new rule in late February. When the coronavirus pandemic hit, the\nagency made an exception for people seeking medical help related to COVID-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That wasn\u2019t nearly good enough\nfor Judge Daniels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a spasm of expansive speculation, he opined,\n“There is a question of whether [the rule]should be applied to future\ndeadly plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or other natural\nand manmade disasters that threaten the health and safety of citizens and\nimmigrants alike, through no fault of their own.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daniels then went back to block a 2018 State Department\nrule requiring foreigners applying for immigrant visas to have “approved\nhealth insurance” to avoid a public charge designation. The micromanaging\njudge objected, saying the government\u2019s accepted insurance plans may \u201cnot\nactually provide comprehensive coverage.\u201d Harrumph!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bill Clinton appointee attempted to halt the public charge rule last year<\/a>, but the U.S. Supreme Court <\/a>upheld the administration\u2019s position in January. Daniels now asserts that coronavirus changed everything, providing the justification for his latest injunctions.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judge\u2019s \u201cblistering decisions\u201d were enthusiastically reported by National Public Radio and other like-minded news organizations. As FAIR <\/a>observed about coverage of the public charge issue, mainstream media outlets lard their stories with comments from Democratic politicians, pro-illegal alien activists and ethnic advocacy groups to distort the administration\u2019s position and all but dismiss the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Daniels\u2019 ongoing campaign against public charge reform\nillustrates how one district judge can dictate (and muddle) U.S. immigration\npolicy. If, as Daniels contends, coronavirus is a national emergency that\ndemands judicial intervention on public charge cases, the American public\nshould expect higher courts to move expeditiously to affirm or reject his\ncontentions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

U.S. District Judge George Daniels clearly has a thing about the Trump administration\u2019s public charge rule for immigrants. For the second time in less than a year, Daniels knocked down administration efforts to strengthen the rules. Though his judicial district is confined to Manhattan, Daniels\u2019s decision will affect public charge policy nationally. Under the revised<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":8810,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[1450],"tags":[106,1909,911,115],"yst_prominent_words":[9569,6238,1974,2991,7568,2757,9570,2064,6230,2966,1980,1963,6012,1929,2583,2095,1971,2988,5387,1939],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23477"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23477"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23477\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23480,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23477\/revisions\/23480"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8810"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23477"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=23477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}