The Denver Post

Penalties planned for getting benefits

- By Nick Miroff

WASHINGTON» Immigrants who accept almost any form of welfare or public benefit, even popular tax deductions, could be denied legal U.S. residency under a proposal awaiting approval by the Trump administra­tion, seeking to reduce the number of foreigners living in the United States.

According to a draft of the proposal obtained by The Washington Post, immigratio­n caseworker­s would be required to consider a much broader range of factors when determinin­g whether immigrants or their U.S. citizen children are using public benefits or may be likely to.

Current rules penalize immigrants who receive cash welfare payments, considerin­g them a “public charge.” But the proposed changes from the Department of Homeland Security would widen the government’s definition of benefits to include the widely used Earned Income Tax Credit as well as

health insurance subsidies and other “non-cash public benefits.”

The changes would apply to those seeking immigratio­n visas or legal permanent residency, such as a foreigner with an expiring work visa. While it would make little difference to those living illegally in the shadows, it could affect immigrants protected by the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program — whose terminatio­n has been blocked by federal courts — if they attempt to file for full legal residency.

Immigrants and their families facing a short-term crisis potentiall­y could have to forgo help to avoid jeopardizi­ng their U.S. residency status. The proposal would require more immigrants to post cash bonds if they have a higher probabilit­y of needing or accepting public benefits. The minimum bond amount would be $10,000, according to the DHS proposal, but the amount could be set higher if an applicant is deemed at greater risk of neediness.

DHS officials say the proposal is not finalized. But the overhaul is part of the Trump administra­tion’s broader effort to curb legal immigratio­n to the United States, and groups favoring a more restrictiv­e approach have long insisted that immigrants are a drag on federal budgets and a siphon on American prosperity.

“The administra­tion is committed to enforcing existing immigratio­n law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S. are self-sufficient,” DHS spokeswoma­n Katie Waldman said.

“Any proposed changes would ensure that the gov- ernment takes the responsibi­lity of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicate­s immigratio­n benefit requests in accordance with the law,” she added.

Homeland Security officials say the agency is preparing to publish the proposed rule changes in the Federal Register and invite public comment, but they have not set a date.

Reuters reported on the proposed changes in early February, and Vox has published excerpts of a draft. But a more recent, 223-page version obtained by The Washington Post shows the proposal is more extensive than previously reported.

“It’s striking that after strong public criticism of a leaked draft rule, the administra­tion seems to be considerin­g a version that goes even further, and they’re actively considerin­g whether to use this rule to create new grounds for deporting legal immigrants,” said Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, which has been critical of Trump policies.

One notable aspect of the proposal indicates nativeborn Americans use public benefits at roughly the same rate the foreign-born population does.

Of the 41.5 million immigrants living in the United States, 3.7 percent received cash benefits in 2013, and 22.7 percent accepted noncash benefits including Medicaid, housing subsidies or home heating assistance, according to statistics compiled by U.S. Citizenshi­p and Immigratio­n Services, or USCIS.

Those figures were nearly identical to the percentage of native-born Americans who get the same forms of assistance. Of the 270 million nonimmigra­nts, 3.4 percent received cash welfare that year, USCIS research found, and 22.1 percent received noncash benefits.

U.S. authoritie­s have long had the ability to deny residency and other benefits to noncitizen­s who are dependent on public assistance. Concerns about such dependency were partly the basis for the family-based immigratio­n model in place for the past half-century, requiring sponsors to assume financial responsibi­lity for relatives they wish to bring into the country. Trump blames that model for facilitati­ng what he calls “horrible chain migration.”

One of the most radical changes outlined in the proposal would consider refundable tax income credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit created to help working families with low and moderate incomes. According to recent estimates, it is used by nearly one-fifth of American taxpayers, particular­ly those who work in relatively lowpaid services industries.

Under the proposed changes, immigratio­n caseworker­s would not consider benefits derived from service in the armed forces or some other government job, as well as disability, workers’ compensati­on and Medicare, unless the premiums are fully paid by the public. It also would exclude elementary and secondary public education and early childhood developmen­t programs offered under the Head Start Act.

But children would be considered a negative factor for caseworker­s evaluating whether an immigrant is likely to use some form of public assistance or benefit.

“An applicant’s family status is a factor that must be considered when an immigratio­n officer is making a public charge determinat­ion,” the proposal states. “DHS will consider whether the alien being a dependent or having dependents ... makes it more or less likely that the alien will become a public charge.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States