{"id":24293,"date":"2021-03-19T13:08:20","date_gmt":"2021-03-19T17:08:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=24293"},"modified":"2021-03-19T13:08:22","modified_gmt":"2021-03-19T17:08:22","slug":"public-charge-ended-fight-continues-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/03\/19\/public-charge-ended-fight-continues-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"American \u2018Values\u2019 and the Public Charge Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says it has \u201cclosed the book\u201d<\/a> on the Trump administration\u2019s public charge rule<\/a> for immigrants. This is hardly an open-and-shut case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Breaking with the spirit, if not the letter, of longstanding U.S. immigration law, DHS<\/a>, citing flimsy \u201cinterim field guidance\u201d from 1999, said it \u201cwill not consider a person\u2019s receipt of Medicaid, public housing or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as part of the public charge inadmissibility determination.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For nearly 140 years, U.S. law<\/a> has authorized immigration agents to bar admission of foreign nationals who are “likely at any time to become a public charge.”\u00a0The prohibition remains applicable to individuals requesting visas to visit the United States and to foreign nationals seeking to obtain green cards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calling the Biden administration\u2019s move a \u201creckless violation of federal law,\u201d 11 states<\/a> are challenging it in court. Their attorneys general, all Republicans, argue that increasing the number of illegal and legal immigrants who can enroll in Medicaid and other publicly financed programs will cost taxpayers roughly $1 billion and create \u201canother national crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The billion-dollar price tag is just for starters. FAIR<\/a> estimates that combined with Biden\u2019s amnesty plans and subsequent family chain migration that could entitle as many as 52 million more immigrants to qualify for green cards, the cost of eliminating the 2019 public charge rule could run into the tens of trillions<\/em> of dollars nationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dismissing\nestablished law and ignoring fiscal reality, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas blandly\nasserted that the Trump public charge rule \u201cwas not in keeping with our\nnation\u2019s values.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Supreme Court didn\u2019t see it that way when it upheld<\/a> the 2019 rule last year. The high court later affirmed<\/a> its decision amid more lower-court wrangling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mayorkas\nhas yet to convince litigators from Alabama, Arizona Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas,\nLouisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia that he has\na legal leg to stand on. All Americans and every state \u2013 even the blue ones — have\na stake in the outcome.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says it has \u201cclosed the book\u201d on the Trump administration\u2019s public charge rule for immigrants. This is hardly an open-and-shut case. Breaking with the spirit, if not the letter, of longstanding U.S. immigration law, DHS, citing flimsy \u201cinterim field guidance\u201d from 1999, said it \u201cwill not consider a person\u2019s<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":17776,"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":[10413,1524,1909,1504],"yst_prominent_words":[6979,1974,2991,2290,2249,2298,2474,2032,2221,1980,2030,2142,10467,1975,1971,2988,5387,1945,1946,1939],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24293"}],"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=24293"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24293\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24294,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24293\/revisions\/24294"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17776"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24293"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=24293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}