By Holly Straut-Eppsteiner
In September 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
proposed a new set of regulations that would make drastic changes to
determinations regarding which immigrants are eligible to be admitted as lawful
permanent residents in the United States. The final rule, which has taken effect for applications submitted
within the U.S. on or after February 24, 2020, substantially changes the
criteria by which “public charge” determinations are made and, as a result, who
has access to permanent lawful status in the country.
Previously, an individual’s likelihood of being designated a public
charge — that is, deemed likely to become primarily dependent on government
support in the future — was based on reliance on public cash assistance for
monthly income or long-term institutionalization at government expense. Widely
regarded as a wealth test, the new rule expands public charge determinations to
include several new criteria, including new income thresholds, age, health,
education, and use of noncash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, or “food stamp” benefits), nonemergency Medicaid
(with some exceptions), and housing assistance. Litigation challenging the rule
is ongoing.
An estimated 26 million people could be chilled from accessing
nutrition, health care, or housing programs because of fear and misinformation
related to this rule. In fact, there is evidence that the DHS rule has already
chilled immigrant families’ participation in benefits programs for which they
are eligible. Shortly after the rule was proposed — more than a year before it
was implemented — a survey found that more than 20 percent of adults in low-income immigrant families had
avoided participating in benefit programs.
In a new report, the National Immigration Law Center draws on
accounts from service providers across the country to document how immigrant
communities reacted to media reports, rumors, and other information circulating
about “public charge” even before the Trump administration began implementing
its new rule. The report describes how individuals who are not subject to a
public charge test — including people who are already lawful permanent
residents, members of exempted humanitarian groups, and even U.S. citizens —
have already been impacted by the rule.
Providers interviewed for this study shared examples such as a working
mother in Wisconsin who canceled food stamp benefits for her U.S. citizen
children and planned to take on a third job, lawful permanent residents
choosing not to enroll in health coverage programs in North Carolina, and a
cancer patient in California who considered stopping treatment because she
believed getting treatment could jeopardize her immigration status. Service
providers reported that their clients were concerned not only about accessing
programs that the new rule lists as being considered in public charge
determinations — such as SNAP and Medicaid — but also programs that are not
listed — such as Affordable Care Act Marketplace health coverage, county health
programs, school lunches, and WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children. These accounts demonstrate how fear and
misinformation about public charge harm the health and well-being of immigrant
communities.
The DHS rule is also making it harder for service providers such as
benefits enrollers, health care providers, and outreach workers to do their
jobs. For example, providers have taken on extra responsibility to research the
rule, understand its implications, and explain it to their clients — even when
they have no formal training in immigration law and policy. Providers must also
overcome misinformation from media, social networks, and immigration attorneys.
In some cases, they are doing so successfully, going above and beyond to make
sure that their clients receive the programs and care they need.
But in other cases, even when service providers shared accurate
information with their clients about whether they would be impacted, fear still
made people decide to avoid programs and services that could significantly
improve their lives. As an advocate for human trafficking survivors in Kentucky
noted, “People feel like we can’t be confident that it won’t change again or
become more restrictive, or that we still won’t get in trouble … [T]here’s just
a realistic fear that there’s this constant changing, so how can I be sure?”
These findings identify a disconnect between the DHS public charge rule
as written and the way it is being interpreted in immigrant communities. They
illustrate that the rule negatively impacts not only people who are actually
subject to its public charge test but also others, including people with lawful
permanent residence, U.S. citizen children, and survivors of crime and human
trafficking. As the rule has moved into the final stage of its implementation,
it’s clear that the health and well-being of immigrants and their families are
at stake.
The report is titled “Documenting through Service Provider Accounts Harm Caused by the
Department of Homeland Security’s Public Charge Rule.” For more
information and resources related to public charge, visit https://ProtectingImmigrantFamilies.org/.
Holly Straut-Eppsteiner is NILC’s Mellon/ACLS Public
Fellow and research program manager.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario