Washington D.C., Jan 28, 2020 / 01:15 pm (CNA).- A Trump administration rule defining more low-income immigrants as a public burden may go into effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week. Catholic leaders decried the ruling, saying it will harm families’ ability to secure basic services and that it represents a radical departure from American traditions.
“We implore the administration to reconsider this harsh and unnecessary policy and rescind it in its entirety,” Sister Donna Markham O.P., president and CEO of Catholic Charities USA, said Jan. 27. “By allowing this harmful policy to go into effect, the administration imposes a chilling effect on access to basic services, creating fear among eligible individuals threatening family unity and stability.”
“We will be judged on how we treat the hungry, the homeless and the stranger among us and this decision signals a watershed change of course from the best moments of our American heritage of welcoming immigrants and refugees,” Markham said.
The rule change expands the criteria under which immigrants would be ineligible for a green card, encompassing those who use public benefits on a more temporary basis than the previous standards.
Catholic Charities USA said the rule harms families, targets legal immigrants, and could prevent families from securing basic nutrition and housing assistance.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a 5-4 vote on Jan. 27 to overturn a nationwide injunction against the rule. The justices did not comment on the merits of the case. However, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a concurring opinion objecting to the use of nationwide injunctions.
The decision means the new rule can go to effect in every state except for Illinois, a separate case. The rule will still face legal challenge in several courts across the country.
Immigrant advocates and several states had challenged the rule, saying it would impose costs on the states and penalize immigrants who rely on temporary government assistance. They objected that it limited access to green cards for low-income immigrants seeking legal entry to the U.S. or seeking to remain legally.
The concept of a “public charge” dates back to at least 1882, when federal lawmakers wanted to ensure that immigrants were independent and would not burden public services.
Since 1996, government regulations had defined a public charge as someone who is “primarily dependent” on government assistance, meaning this assistance supplies more than half their income through cash benefits, such as the Temporary Aid for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income from Social Security, CNN reports.
Previously, fewer than 1% of applicants were disqualified on public charge grounds.
Under the Trump administration rules announced in August 2019, “noncash benefits providing for basic needs such as housing or food” count towards consideration of whether a person would be a public charge. These include most forms of Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
An immigrant who received one or more designated benefits for more than 12 months in a 36-month period could be designated a public charge. Use of two kinds of benefits in a single month would count as two months, the New York Times reports.
Lawyers for the private groups challenging the rule cited Department of Homeland Security estimates that the rule will cause hundreds of thousands of households to forgo benefits for which they are eligible “out of fear and confusion about the consequences for their immigration status of accepting such benefits.” The Department of Homeland Security warned of increased malnutrition, especially for pregnant or breastfeeding women and their infants and children; increased prevalence of communicable disease; and increased poverty and housing instability, the lawyers said in their brief.
New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood, whose state was among the plaintiffs to the legal challenge, said the new rule would “radically disrupt over a century of settled immigration policy and public-benefits programs.” The established consensus was that the phrase “public charge” was limited to mean “individuals who are primarily dependent on the government for long-term subsistence,” she argued.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who defended the rule, asked the Supreme Court to lift the lower court injunctions. He argued that the new rule was a permissible interpretation of the concept “public charge.” It is a lawful goal to discourage immigrants seeking green cards from using public benefits, and enjoinment of the rule would cause “long-term harm” to the government, he said.
Francisco said if any resident aliens not subject to the rule disenroll from benefits for fear they would endanger their immigration status, then “such disenrollment is unwarranted, easily corrected and temporary.”
Susan Welber, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society, opposed the new policy. She told CNN the policy aimed to exclude “as unworthy and unwelcome anyone who is predicted to receive even a small amount of food, health or housing assistance at any point.”
“We are very disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, and the irreparable consequences it will have for immigrants and their families across the nation, but we continue to believe that our legal claims are very strong that we will ultimately prevail in stopping this rule permanently,” she said.
In September 2018, when the initial changes to the rule were proposed, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that the rule will be “very harmful to families” and cause fear among immigrant families who are “already struggling to fulfill the American Dream.” The proposed rule “further compounds strict eligibility guidelines already in place preventing many immigrants from receiving federal aid,” they said.
[…]
For the Hochul-Bassett duo to fault CompassCare for not offering abortion “services” is like the Munich Central Hospital (city nearest to Dachau) being faulted for not doubling as a Nazi crematorium.
Mind-bending and gender transitioning are cut from the same cloth…
The earlier Governor Cuomo refused to enforce child protection against abortion, and the transition to the later Governor Andrew Cuomo gave us the announcement, in 2014, that those who oppose abortion and gay “marriage” “are not welcome in New York.” More recently (2016), it was reported that the fully transitioned New York City Commissioner on Human Rights declared no less than thirty-one kinds of sexual identity (and now there are 78!). And, that (“he”) wanted the use of the “non-binary” spectrum “zie” in place of “he” and “she,” threatening heavy fines for not following the new script.
Small wonder—the net loss of well over 300,000 people from New York City last year, and an equal number overall from New York state. Reported as COVID fallout, but a sane world knows it’s because the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
This type of thinking makes you wonder if this country will survive.
More heavy-handed stupidity from the left. Their ironic double standards of morality are plainly visible except to those most thoroughly indoctrinated.They get away with lies, propaganda and distortions which push us further left as long as people do not openly oppose them and complain to their govt representatives. I am reminded of the leftists who even now flap their hands hysterically about an “insurrection” that was “threatening the very foundations of our democracy”, all the while on TV I am seeing film of UNARMED folks in viking costume taking selfies.Yeah. Scary as anything. NOT. A dog is a dog, and no amount of calling it a cat will make it so.
It didn’t take long for progressives to move way past cakes and flowers.
It didn’t take long for progressives to move FAR beyond cakes and flowers.
Lex – When were they EVER at cakes and flowers?
Just when you thought (or hoped) that the lunacy had peaked.
Q: WHY did they do that?
A: Because that’s what they do.
One is tempted to say that they can’t help themselves, but that’s not the case – they know damn well what they’re doing.
The Transgressive Party Platform:
1 – We decide what your choices are, or we burn your business down.
2 – We believe Science is Surreal, and Bruce Jenner is a woman, and if you don’t agree, we’ll burn your business down.
3 – You are just breeders, and your kids are our property, and we’ll decide how to raise them, and if you don’t agree, we’ll burn your business down.
The picture of life arising from modern Democrat politics is all chaos and the relations with it maintained by the Republicans can seem to be mostly self-serving and paternalizing/accommodating and therefore impotent.
As you might compile a study card, jot down some notes and see: endless Congressional management hearings, over-bearing petrol prices, sabre-rattling for war, fire-bombings, prosecuting victims, reductionist federal policies, etc., etc.
It’s ugly and I don’t want to complete the list. But it serves the purpose of providing a snapshot of where things are and a measuring line for discerning if anything actually progresses.
And it provokes the question, very rational, very universal: What really can be achieved that way?
The graffiti looks like something from a four year old’s coloring book. Real bright people, these.