THE GORSUCH KAVANAUGH COURT
US Supreme Court Is Allowing The Trump Administration To Deny Green Cards To Immigrants Who Might Use Public Benefits
The government will now be able to deny permanent residency to immigrants who officials believe are likely to use public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid.
The government will now be able to deny permanent residency to immigrants who officials believe are likely to use public benefits, such as food stamps and Medicaid.
Hamed Aleaziz BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on January 27, 2020,
Elliot Spagat / AP
People seeking asylum in the US wait at the border crossing bridge in Tijuana, Mexico, Jan. 8.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s request to enforce a sweeping policy that will allow the government to deny permanent residency to immigrants who officials believe are likely to use public benefits, such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid.
The five conservative justices voted to allow the Trump administration to implement the “public charge” policy as a legal challenge continues in the federal courts. A federal judge in New York had instituted a nationwide injunction blocking the policy in October, just days after the Trump administration had hoped to roll it out.
“We are happy to see the Supreme Court step in the way they did here,” Ken Cuccinelli, second-in-command at the Department of Homeland Security, said during a call with reporters Monday. “We very much appreciate it.”
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence on the decision that the policy would be allowed to move forward: “Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois,” he wrote, explaining that a separate injunction was in place for the state of Illinois.
Immigration advocates and former officials said the decision would have massive implications.
“This is a fundamental rewrite of our legal immigration system without a single change in the law by Congress,” said Ur Jaddou, a former chief counsel for the US Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Obama administration.
Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the Supreme Court’s decision would allow a policy that will not only “unilaterally” change the face of immigration but “chill millions of immigrants and their US national family members from applying for or staying in enrolled in public benefits programs.”
USCIS will likely implement the policy in the upcoming days after being stopped from doing so in 2019.
The Immigration and Nationality Act has long allowed the government to reject granting permanent residency to immigrants who were determined to be a financial burden on society or a "public charge" — meaning they’re dependent on the government for financial support.
The new rule, however, alters how the government decides if someone is a public charge, allowing officials to deny green cards to those who have used or are determined to be likely to use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP food stamps), Section 8 housing vouchers and assistance, public housing, or most forms of Medicaid.
More than 4 million noncitizens were in families receiving SNAP benefits between 2014 and 2016, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute. More than 39 million people were enrolled in the program in June 2018, according to the Department of Agriculture’s most recent statistics. It did not break out the numbers by immigration status.
"Long-standing federal law requires aliens to rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors, and private organizations in their communities to succeed," Cuccinelli said in October.
But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council, said the public charge rule breaks "the fundamental promise that America is a land of opportunity for all people, rich or poor."
"The United States was built by people with few resources who came to the United States with a strong desire to work hard," he said. "The public charge rule undermines that tradition."
Posted on January 27, 2020,
Elliot Spagat / AP
People seeking asylum in the US wait at the border crossing bridge in Tijuana, Mexico, Jan. 8.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s request to enforce a sweeping policy that will allow the government to deny permanent residency to immigrants who officials believe are likely to use public benefits, such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid.
The five conservative justices voted to allow the Trump administration to implement the “public charge” policy as a legal challenge continues in the federal courts. A federal judge in New York had instituted a nationwide injunction blocking the policy in October, just days after the Trump administration had hoped to roll it out.
“We are happy to see the Supreme Court step in the way they did here,” Ken Cuccinelli, second-in-command at the Department of Homeland Security, said during a call with reporters Monday. “We very much appreciate it.”
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence on the decision that the policy would be allowed to move forward: “Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois,” he wrote, explaining that a separate injunction was in place for the state of Illinois.
Immigration advocates and former officials said the decision would have massive implications.
“This is a fundamental rewrite of our legal immigration system without a single change in the law by Congress,” said Ur Jaddou, a former chief counsel for the US Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Obama administration.
Sarah Pierce, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the Supreme Court’s decision would allow a policy that will not only “unilaterally” change the face of immigration but “chill millions of immigrants and their US national family members from applying for or staying in enrolled in public benefits programs.”
USCIS will likely implement the policy in the upcoming days after being stopped from doing so in 2019.
The Immigration and Nationality Act has long allowed the government to reject granting permanent residency to immigrants who were determined to be a financial burden on society or a "public charge" — meaning they’re dependent on the government for financial support.
The new rule, however, alters how the government decides if someone is a public charge, allowing officials to deny green cards to those who have used or are determined to be likely to use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP food stamps), Section 8 housing vouchers and assistance, public housing, or most forms of Medicaid.
More than 4 million noncitizens were in families receiving SNAP benefits between 2014 and 2016, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute. More than 39 million people were enrolled in the program in June 2018, according to the Department of Agriculture’s most recent statistics. It did not break out the numbers by immigration status.
"Long-standing federal law requires aliens to rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors, and private organizations in their communities to succeed," Cuccinelli said in October.
But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council, said the public charge rule breaks "the fundamental promise that America is a land of opportunity for all people, rich or poor."
"The United States was built by people with few resources who came to the United States with a strong desire to work hard," he said. "The public charge rule undermines that tradition."
Hamed Aleaziz · Jan. 22, 2020
Samira Sadeque— Jan 27 at 5:54PM | Last updated Jan 27 at 6:03PM
People on Twitter ask whose ancestors would’ve passed immigrant ‘wealth test’
The Supreme Court on Monday voted 5-4 in favor of Trump’s
‘public charge’ rule.
Samira Sadeque January 27, 2020
The Supreme Court on Monday voted to allow the government to deny green cards to citizens who might need government assistance programs, according to multiple reports. The move led social media users to ask whose ancestors would have passed the so-called “wealth test.”
The court voted 5-4 with the conservatives leading the vote, lifting a former injunction on the program, which President Donald Trump’s administration said in August it would be reviewing, according to the New York Times. While previous provisions of the “public charge rule” was applicable only to those requiring “substantial and sustained long-term” government assistance, and was instrumental in green-card application being denied to less than 1% of applicants, the new measure will include even those who require occasional and/or minimal government assistance such as Medicaid and food stamps.
Such strict measures would disqualify many immigrants, and advocates such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) condemned the vote.
“The administration has weaponized [Department of Homeland Security] to make it harder for immigrants to find a home, build a family and participate in our society,” Sam Brooke, SPLC deputy legal director, said in a statement on Monday afternoon. “The rule is just the latest effort in the Trump administration’s relentless attack on nonwhite immigrants in our communities and at the border.”
Meanwhile, people took to Twitter to express their frustration with the ruling. Many shared their personal stories of how their own family wouldn’t qualify for the green card under the “wealth test” back in the day.
Sadly, i would not have been allowed to stay in America, prior to 1966, under this wealth test. https://t.co/0NVwkUchlW— Al Cardenas (@AlCardenasFL_DC) January 27, 2020
My father and my uncles would not have been able to fight for America if there was a wealth test when my grandfather immigrated here.— kim (@4_the_babies) January 27, 2020
A THREAD ABOUT SCOTUS' IMMIGRANT WEALTH TEST DECISION— Paola Mendoza (@paolamendoza) January 27, 2020
Being poor is not a crime.
When my family applied for our green cards we were poor. We had NOTHING. We only had each other and my mother’s determination.
We were given green cards regardless of our economic status.
A wealth test would have barred my father and my mother’s parents from becoming Americans. https://t.co/rzBiJsN35M— Macavi-Tara (@tara_atrandom) January 27, 2020
Contrary to the American Dream. An insult to the global community.— Mike Siegel (@SiegelForTexas) January 27, 2020
My own family has diverse roots, and almost every ancestor would be barred under this disgraceful wealth test.
Next Congress we must take decisive action to re-establish our commitment to equal opportunity. https://t.co/8nGrSZTYxX
My mother came here in her 20s and as a college student. Went to a community college, a University, then got her Masters. Now she works as a financial director and makes $100,000 a year. A wealth test upon entry, is BULLSHIT https://t.co/1lx3dPoafB— Snoa (@noacook) January 27, 2020
Many asked, with America being a land of immigrants, how many of those involved in the decision-making would likely be here if the wealth test was enforced upon their ancestors.
I wonder how the 5 Supreme Court judges' ancestors would have fared on the wealth test?— Cathy Coleman (@CathyJoeGPT) January 27, 2020
I bet my ancestors would have had little more than
the clothes on their backs and the will to live free.
Beginning the first of generations of hard working productive patriotic Americans -
My guess is that most of the people who support this policy would not be here had their grandparents and great-grandparents been faced with a wealth test upon entering this country. https://t.co/loa6XguvMx— Kevin M. Levin (@KevinLevin) January 27, 2020
fuck this administration and this pathetic supreme court. none of their relatives would have passed a wealth test ffs https://t.co/PRshMKYg8h— hobari⁷ 🐳💜🥺🌱 (@zeokiezeokie) January 27, 2020
Many also quoted the “The New Colossus” poem that’s etched on the Statue of Liberty. Lines of the poem—”Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”—have operated as a tool for many advocates to remind the administration of American values.
So don’t give me your sick or your poor?— Just A Fan ⚾️⚽️🏊🏼 (@makboo168) January 27, 2020
It was either change the poem or this... pic.twitter.com/IzsUScaEKg— Wolverine Filled Moat Enthusiast (@rewegreatyet) January 27, 2020
I mean just rewrite the poem in the Statue of Liberty at this point...— No War But Class War 🌹 (@pinkladyf0xx) January 27, 2020
Mr President?.... “Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" .... quote on the Statue of Liberty— Severiano del Castillo Galván (@SeverianoCG) January 27, 2020
In August, a Trump official said the “huddled masses” line in the poem was supposedly only about Europeans coming into America, which only lends to many people’s suspicions that the current public charge rule is specifically aimed at Black and brown communities.
We all know this wealth test is fundamentally about keeping Black and brown immigrants out of America. It's part of a broader white nationalist campaign to restrict all forms of immigration. And it's appalling. https://t.co/3AbCDVHZoJ— Leah Frances Greenberg (@Leahgreenb) January 27, 2020
This is not only a wealth test; it’s a disability test. An immigrant who is disabled is more likely to live in poverty and to need health care. https://t.co/Ulhkuyo44Q— Kathy Flaherty (@ConnConnection) January 27, 2020
This policy is also known as ppl Trump deems at risk of being black or brown.— MFD (@MideOFD) January 27, 2020
So if you're poor or middle class, but have a brilliant mind, you're not welcome.— Keela Young (@KeelaYoung1) January 27, 2020
But if you're rich and can get around paying taxes, come on in. @SCOTUS disappoints again.
Many outright said this is a result of electing Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination initially faced much scrutiny and backlash in 2018.
Losing the Supreme Court will haunt us for generations to come. 😞— Kursti 🌹 (@podoodle) January 27, 2020
Next is a wealth test for voters.— Neil Ryan (@neilryanphilly) January 27, 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment