The Trump administration this week finalized a rule that will expand the definition of a person who could become dependent on the government for support, known as a public charge, allowing immigration officials to decide who is admitted into the United States or is allowed to adjust his or her status to that of lawful permanent resident (LPR) based on the likelihood of becoming a public burden.
Using the public charge inadmissibility determination method, officers from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that administers the country's naturalization and immigration system — will look at the totality of a person's circumstances, including age, health, assets, education and financial status.
According to government officials, public benefits are defined as federal, state and local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance and non-cash benefits.
Under the new rule, the financial security of immigrants who are in the United States legally on temporary visas or who are eligible for adjustment of status, will be examined more closely when they seek LPR status — which allows them to live and work in the U.S. and eventually file for American citizenship. They receive a photo ID known as a "green card."
A person may be if he or she has used one or more public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period. For example, the receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months.
Immigration officials will be given broader discretion to determine whether an immigrant is likely to be a user of public benefits, to deny him or her a green card, or to order that person removed from the country. The latter can eventually lead to deportation but applicants can appeal the decisions.
Even though officials said the program would not apply to people who already have green cards, to certain members of the military, to refugees and asylum-seekers, or to pregnant women and children, the Trump administration strongly defends the idea the United States should welcome immigrants based only on the "merit" they demonstrate.
Ken Cuccinelli, USCIS acting director, said it would allow the government to insist that immigrants who come to the country were self-sufficient and would not be a drain on society.
At a White House news conference, Cuccinelli said the rule would apply only to applications and petitions received starting on Oct. 15. After that, USCIS career immigration services officers are expected to consider an applicant's current and past receipt of public benefits as negative factors while in the United States.
"However, receipt of certain non-cash benefits received before Oct. 15 will not be considered as a negative factor," he said.
Supporters of the new interpretation of the public charge definition proposal have said the rule "ensures that we allow in only those who will be able to pay their own bills."
Most of the 800 pages in the new public charge rule consist of responses to critics who believe the rule is too strict, based on the idea that people likely to become public charges should be welcomed to America. Congress has explicitly stated otherwise.
According to immigration law, a legal permanent resident qualifies for . But in most cases, the LPR must wait five years after receiving residence to apply for government assistance.
A showed that within the expanded rule there would be "a disproportionate effect on women, children and the elderly. It also could shift legal immigration away from Latin America and towards Europe in particular."
Immigrant advocates described it as a "cruel" policy, which they said was already leading immigrants to quit housing and medical benefits out of concern that it could impact their immigration status or that of a family member. The National Immigration Law Center filed litigation on Friday to stop the public charge expansion. The organization and co-litigators asked the court to "strike it down," calling the new interpretation of the rule a "violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
BREAKING: We just filed our lawsuit to stop Trump’s regulation, which threatens millions of immigrant families. We will not stand for it. We’re fighting back against this racist policy and we’re going to win the fight to protect immigrant families.
"One line of attack is that the agency has gone too far in trying to make these changes by regulation, and that only Congress has authority to make such substantial changes," Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University's law school, told VOA.