Redefining what a 'Public Charge' means

There is a new front in the president’s all-out assault on immigrants, with the White House’s announced intention to impose harsher rules for determining when immigrants are considered a “public charge” – a legal designation that can block a person’s path to permanent legal residency (i.e., obtaining a green card). The Washington Post received a leaked draft of proposed changes to the law showing that the Department of Homeland Security would redefine "public charge" to include mere "use" of any public subsidy rather than "dependency."

Under current immigration law, an immigrant seeking a green card must show that he/she is “not likely to become a public charge," someone who is unable to support themselves and thus likely to depend on government benefits for income.

A green card applicant would have to prove that she or he is not likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, or else the applicant is barred from becoming a U.S. resident. The current administration wants to broaden this definition and require review of the application and use of a large array of essential basic needs programs by the applicant’s dependents, regardless if they’re U.S. citizens.

This proposal isn’t just aimed at undocumented immigrants, it targets families who have immigrated lawfully, as well as other U.S. citizens.

If enacted, these new rules would impose severe consequences on immigrants and their families. Otherwise eligible applicants would be denied legal U.S. residency and be unable to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident (i.e., green card holder) if they, or their U.S. citizen family members, access one or more of a range of government programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); housing and shelter benefits; and non-cash Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits.

These proposed changes would force families, including citizen children, to choose between (1) reuniting with loved ones or even keeping their families together and (2) getting the vital assistance they need.

Fortunately, the law gives us an opportunity to weigh in on regulatory changes, and this proposal has already generated massive opposition. The law also gives Congress the responsibility to rein agencies in when their regulations spin out of control.

When a government agency makes feeding kids grounds for punishment, that agency is out of control.

We can’t let the administration force families to choose between the food, housing and health care they need and the people they love. This ruling has not been finalized, but if or when it does, the Forum will ensure the community understands the steps needed to weigh in on those changes.

In the meantime, you can stay updated by sending an email to pifillinois@povertylaw.org.