Trump administration proposal would deny green cards to immigrants using welfare, food stamps

Trevor Hughes USA TODAY

Published 12:47 PM EDT Sep 23, 2018

The Trump administration proposed strict new rules to deny green cards to millions of potential immigrants if they are deemed likely to use food stamps, welfare, housing vouchers or Medicaid when applying to enter the United States or trying to become permanent residents.

Department of Homeland Security officials, who announced the proposal late Saturday, claim it would save federal taxpayers $2.7 billion annually by deterring immigrants from applying for benefits they would otherwise be qualified for. It would affect about 380,000 people annually, federal officials said, and is designed to ensure the immigrants can support themselves.

“Under longstanding federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially,” said DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. "This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”

In certain cases, federal officials said, people who are already lawful permanent residents and who have previously received benefits could be subject to the new rule if they leave the country and try to return. But most existing green card holders would be unaffected.

The proposed rules, which run 447 pages in the Federal Register, are slated to take effect after a 60-day public review and comment period.

The administration's proposal aligns with President Donald Trump's campaign promises to pursue tougher immigration policies, from building the wall on the southern border with Mexico to reducing the number of refugees admitted into the country.

It's also being unveiled in the heat of midterm elections where polls show Democrats could take control of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and are running close in very competitive Senate races. Stricter immigration policies are viewed as a hot-button issue to bring conservatives to the polls, while Democrats see it as a lightning rod for their base.

Hard-line conservatives have long argued against admitting immigrants who can't support themselves. But immigrant advocates call it a cruel attack on some of the world’s most vulnerable people who are seeking a chance at a better life in the United States – and who might need a little help getting started.

“This is long overdue,” Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, whose group backs reducing immigration, told the New York Times. “This country has defined public charge in a fictional way in order to facilitate high levels of low-skilled immigration. But this is simply a 21st-century definition of what public charge is.”

Immigration officials for decades have considered applicants' financial status in deciding whether to permit them entry, but the new rules are significantly stricter than previous policy.

Pro-immigration groups are girding for a major fight to stop or alter the proposal, both by submitting comments on the plan and investigating options for a lawsuit. They say immigrants worried about being denied a visa may avoid or withdraw from public aid programs even at the risk of losing shelter and suffering deteriorating health.

The proposed Trump policy means immigrants will be "hungrier, sicker and poorer," said Olivia Golden, the executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy. "It targets documented working parents who are playing by the rules. Everything that we know suggests that it's a terrible idea. We have to fight back."

Immigration advocates say the proposal will likely dissuade immigrant parents of young American citizens from seeking food stamps, welfare or housing assistance. "There seems to be no limit to the ways this administration is willing to harm children and families," said Ai-jen Poo, the director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance.

Potentially disqualifying benefits include Medicare Part D prescription drugs, Medicaid with some exceptions for emergency services and disability services related to education, food stamps and Section 8 housing vouchers.

Critics also contend that focusing on the immediate economic costs of immigration is short-sighted and ignores the long-term contribution they make to society.

Supporters of the president's proposal said immigration advocates are trying to have it both ways by claiming immigrants are a net benefit to the country and simultaneously saying they need access to food stamps and housing assistance.

"Interesting how the same people who claim immigrants are such a fiscal benefit are now screaming that a huge percentage will be blocked because they are dependent on welfare benefits. Which is it?" tweeted Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.

According to a landmark study on the economic impacts of immigration conducted by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine last year, first-generation immigrants cost U.S. taxpayers $57.4 billion a year. But the researchers found that second-generation immigrants provided an economic boost of $30.5 billion and third-generation immigrants created a $223.8 billion gain.

The positive contribution of immigrants was underscored this year in a letter signed by 1,470 economists delivered to Trump and Republican leaders in Congress. The group acknowledged that in the short run, immigrants can prove harmful for some American businesses and American workers with lower levels of education.

"But the benefits that immigration brings to society far outweigh their costs, and smart immigration policy could better maximize the benefits of immigration while reducing the costs," the economists concluded.

Said Rep. Luis Guitierrez, D-Ill., in a statement: "From the first day of the Trump campaign, the message has been that immigrants are a danger and a drain. Today he’s selling the lie that immigrants weaken the U.S. economy when exactly the opposite is true. "

In Washington, comprehensive immigration reform has stalled in Congress, and the Trump administration has instead been using its administrative and regulatory powers to limit the number of people entering the United States.

Next year, the government will also dramatically restrict the number of refugees allowed to resettle in the United States, permitting no more than 30,000 people fleeing war, violence and persecution across the globe to make a new home in America. That's down from the 45,000 refugee cap set for this year, which was already the lowest since Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980. And data from the State Department indicates the administration won't even reach that 45,000. With only two weeks remaining in the 2018 fiscal year, the administration has admitted 20,918 refugees.

More: US sets lowest cap ever on admissions of refugees fleeing war, violence and persecution

Contributing: Alan Gomez, The Associated Press.

Let's block ads! (Why?)