By Alicia A. Caldwell
San Francisco and neighboring Santa Clara County filed suit against the Trump administration, challenging the government’s move to deny permanent residence to legal immigrants who use certain public-assistance programs or bar entry for those deemed likely to do so.
The plaintiffs say in their 23-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, that the rule changing the definition of who might become a “public charge” under federal immigration law is “not only harmful; it is also unlawful.”
The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request to comment.
Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, defended the rule change Tuesday.
“Longstanding federal law has required foreign nationals to rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, sponsors, and private organizations in their communities to succeed,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “The public charge inadmissibility regulation lies squarely within existing law and we expect this rule to withstand any legal challenges.”
The rule, one of the Trump administration’s most sweeping efforts to revamp the immigration system, was issued by the Department of Homeland Security on Monday and is expected to take effect in mid-October.
Under the new rule, the use or potential use of programs such as Medicaid, some types of housing assistance or food stamps could disqualify an immigrant from getting a green card, which permits legal permanent residence, or being allowed into the U.S. in the first place.
More than one million residents of the two California counties were born outside the U.S., according to U.S. Census data reviewed by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank that studies immigration.
The 873-page rule won’t be applied retroactively, so it won’t affect the status of an immigrant who has used some benefits in the past, but it could affect those who apply to change their status in the future.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit that the change will “worsen the health and well-being of the counties’ residents, increase risks to the public health, undermine the counties’ health and safety-net systems, and inflict significant financial harm on the counties.”
The lawsuit also challenges how the rule was made, arguing that the federal government failed to follow the basic procedures to make an administrative rule change and that “core aspects of the final rule are arbitrary and untethered to the purpose of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
Court challenges by states to the rule were widely expected after Democratic attorneys general from 16 states and the District of Columbia told the White House Office of Management and Budget last year that they believed the administration had “entirely failed to estimate the true costs” of public-charge regulations proposed last fall.
For more information, go to: http://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment