The Denver Post

Trump’s new immigratio­n rule should make blood boil

- By Catherine Rampell Catherine Rampell is an opinion columnist at The Washington Post.

Once again, the Trump administra­tion is looking to punish immigrants. And once again, innocent children are getting hurt in the process.

This time, however, many of those innocent children are likely to be U.S. citizens.

On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the Trump administra­tion is readying a new rule that should make your blood boil. The initiative, in the works for more than a year, would make it harder for legal immigrants to receive either green cards or citizenshi­p if they — or anyone in their households — has ever benefited from a long list of safety-net programs. These include the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), food stamps or even health insurance purchased on the Obamacare exchanges.

Three points are worth emphasizin­g here.

First is that, again, this policy would apply to immigrants who are in the country legally. It’s not about punishing people for “sneaking across the border,” that apparently unforgivab­le transgress­ion that Trump officials have previously used to justify state-sanctioned child abuse. And, in any case, undocument­ed immigrants are already excluded from nearly all federal anti-poverty programs.

As such, the proposal fits into President Trump’s agenda to dramatical­ly cut levels of legal immigratio­n, despite his rhetorical focus on the undocument­ed.

Second, this rule is ostensibly about making sure immigrants are self-sufficient and not a drain on public coffers. But NBC reports that the rule could disqualify immigrants making as much as 250 percent of the poverty level.

Moreover, an immigrant’s past use of benefits does not necessaril­y mean he or she will need them forever. For instance, refugees initially cost the government money. But over time, their work and wage prospects improve and, by their fifth year here, they pay more in taxes than they received in benefits on average, according to a government report commission­ed and subsequent­ly suppressed by the Trump administra­tion last year.

Third, and most important, is that under the proposal, it’s not only immigrants who must forgo safety-net benefits if they don’t wish to be penalized by the immigratio­n system. It is everyone in a given immigrant’s household.

That includes — based on an earlier leaked draft of the proposal published by The Washington Post — an immigrant’s own children, even if those children are U.S. citizens who independen­tly qualify for safety-net benefits.

That’s right. Legal-immigrant moms and dads may soon face a choice between (A) guaranteei­ng their U.S.-born children medical care, preschool classes and infant formula today, or (B) not threatenin­g their own ability to qualify for green cards or citizenshi­p tomorrow.

The universe of U.S.-citizen children who could be affected is large. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that, in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment alone in 2016, about 5.8 million citizen children had a noncitizen parent.

The rule has not yet been issued. But various versions of it have leaked over the past year and a half. These have received coverage in foreign-language media, and fears about changes to immigratio­n policy already appear to be discouragi­ng participat­ion in services meant to help low-income American children.

Including, perhaps most distressin­gly, the Special Supplement­al Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), a critical lifeline that provides access to food, prenatal care, breast pumps and other services for low-income mothers and children. WIC was listed in the draft rule published by The Washington Post, and it’s not clear whether it remains in the latest version; but, either way, some immigrant parents and parents-to-be are already unenrollin­g, just in case.

“I had one family come and tell me, ‘Please remove us from WIC program, all services, medical, dental, everything,'” says Aliya S. Haq, the nutrition services supervisor at Internatio­nal Community Health Services in Seattle. The family had a child less than a year old who needed medical attention, but Haq could not convince them the benefits outweighed the risks of staying in the program.

Another patient, who is pregnant, asked to stop receiving prenatal assistance because she’s applying for citizenshi­p.

Haq said the clinic’s WIC enrollment has fallen by about 10 percent over the past year; she worries daily about whether infant and maternal mortality rates will worsen, and whether there will be a negative effect on the brain developmen­t and longterm health of newborns.

Any policy that discourage­s, even a little bit, poor families’ use of such services is not just heartless. From an economic perspectiv­e, it is foolish. We need healthy, well-nourished, well-educated children to become healthy, well-nourished, productive workers.

But once again, children and the economic future they represent are the casualties of Trump’s casual cruelty.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States