UPDATE “ PUBLIC CHARGE “
01/08/20
A panel of federal judges in New York on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s request to begin a program aimed at cutting back benefits for immigrants while a lawsuit over the plan plays out in court.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit keeps in place a nationwide halt on President Trump’s "public charge" rule that links immigrants’ legal status to their use of public benefits.
The three judges on the panel are all Democratic appointees. Judge Amalya L. Kearse was appointed to the bench by President Carter, Guido Calabresi by President Clinton, and Susan L. Carney by President Obama.
The order came after the Trump administration sought to implement the program while it appeals a U.S.-wide injunction entered by a federal district judge in New York.
Two similar injunctions were lifted last month by the Richmond, Va.-based 4th Circuit and the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. Despite those decisions, however, the injunction from New York, which falls under the 2nd Circuit, continues to apply across the country.
The Trump administration’s controversial approach to the public charge rule, announced in August, is one of a series of administration measures aimed at curbing legal immigration.
Under the policy, an immigrant would be considered a public charge — essentially dependent on government aid — if they receive at least one public benefit for more than 12 months within any three-year period. Benefits include Medicaid, food stamps, welfare or public housing vouchers. The Trump administration rule would also examine the likelihood of an immigrant using such benefits in the future.
The rule, which represents a more stringent approach to a long-standing immigration law than those taken by recent administrations, is likely to make it harder for some immigrants to obtain a green card to reside permanently in the U.S.
The policy was quickly challenged in court, leading to several nationwide injunctions before it could take effect on Oct. 15.
At issue in the case is whether the Trump administration has the proper authority to expand the definition of who is considered a public charge.
Henry Grullon, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER/
AS OF 12/05/19
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ninth-circuit-lifts-injunctions-blocking-trump-admins-public-charge-rule-for-immigrants/
A federal appeals court on Thursday lifted several injunctions that were blocking the Trump administration’s rule restricting immigration eligibility for individuals deemed likely to become public In its 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed preliminary injunctions against the administration’s rule from federal courts in Washington and California.
(The rule is still blocked nationwide by courts in Maryland and New York, which the decision by the Ninth Circuit do not overturn).
(The rule is still blocked nationwide by courts in Maryland and New York, which the decision by the Ninth Circuit do not overturn).
“Public charge” denotes immigrants who are likely to require government assistance, such as food stamps or Medicaid. The Trump administration had moved to restrict the number of new immigrants who would require such assistance, but several courts blocked the rule in October before it could take effect.
In its 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed preliminary injunctions against the administration’s rule from federal courts in Washington and California. The rule is still blocked nationwide by courts in Maryland and New York, which the decision by the Ninth Circuit do not overturn.
“The phrase [“public charge”] is subject to multiple interpretations, it in fact has been interpreted differently, and the Executive Branch has been afforded the discretion to interpret it,” wrote Judges Jay Bybee and Sandra Ikuta, both appointed by George W. Bush. “Whether the change in policy results from changing circumstances or a change in administrations, the wisdom of the policy is not a question we can review.”
——————————————————————————————————————President Trump’s new “public charge” rule is a signal to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers to deny more green card applications. The rules require officers to consider an expanded group of public benefits in deciding whether an applicant qualifies for a green card. Since most undocumented do not qualify for the newly added benefits, that change won’t have much impact. A bigger problem is that the rule requires a green card applicant to prove more financial resources than under current rules. Here’s the answer to some questions about the new rule.
More in my next column.
Allan Wernick is an attorney and director of the City University of New York’s Citizenship Now! project.
Send questions and comments to Allan Wernick, New York Daily News, 7th Fl., 4 New York Plaza, New York, N.Y., 10004
or email to questions@allanwernick.com.
Follow him on Twitter @awernick.
Q, What is the public charge bar to permanent residence?
A. With some exceptions, such as for asylees and refugees, the law bars individuals who are “likely to become a public charge” from getting a green card. A public charge is a person who will require government funded need-based public assistance.
Q. How are the rules changing?
A. Under current rules, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services considers only cash-assistance benefits as a major negative factor when determining whether a green card applicant is likely to become a public charge. Under the new rule, immigration will consider almost all need-based federal benefits. Also, the rule requires increased proof that an applicant will not become a public charge, even if the applicant is not receiving public benefits.
Q. Are all green card applicants affected by the rule change?
A. No. The new rule affects only individuals interviewing for green cards in the United States, the process called “adjustment of status,” who have received certain public benefits. And, from among those applying to adjust status, exempt are refugees, asylees, special immigrant juveniles, applicants under the Violence Against Women Act and others applying under humanitarian programs.
Q. Which benefits do not count under the rule?
A. Among the many excluded are state or city-funded benefits, Medicaid for pregnant women, the WIC program (a supplemental food benefit for low to moderate income pregnant women, infants, and children) and student loans.
Q. When does the new rule take effect?
A. Applications filed on or after Oct. 15 will be considered under the new rule.
Allan Wernick is an attorney and director of the City University of New York’s Citizenship Now! project.
Send questions and comments to Allan Wernick, New York Daily News, 7th Fl., 4 New York Plaza, New York, N.Y., 10004
or email to questions@allanwernick.com.
Follow him on Twitter @awernick.
HENRY GRULLON 2020
HENRY LIVE
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER
POLITICAL COMMENTARY
WEBPAGE: https://henrygsenior.wixsite.com/mysite/home
BLOG: https://henryliveusa.blogspot.com/?m=1
Twitter: @henrygrullon4
No comments:
Post a Comment