“What Good is a Green Card if I’m Dying from Hunger?” Analyzing the Fallout of the Trump Administration’s Proposed Public Charge Rule

Abstract

In October of 2018, the Trump administration published a proposed rule that would dramatically reshape the nature of legal immigration to the United States. Currently, immigrants who apply for legal permanent residence, or who renew a temporary visa, are subject to what are referred to as "public charge" determinations. As part of the process of gaining legal entry to the United States, migrants are evaluated by immigration officials to decide whether they are likely to become "public charges" - a term used to refer to individuals who are overly reliant on the government and its welfare programs. In practice, this has meant that if individuals are deemed likely to participate in public benefits programs in the future, they would be labeled as "public charges," and denied entry to the United States.

The Trump administration's proposal is especially significant, then, because of its proposal to change current public charge law by expanding the benefits considered for public charge determinations. Currently, the two main federal benefits considered for such determinations are the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The proposed rule would expand this list to now include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Medicaid, subject to limited exceptions; Medicare Part D drug subsidies, and certain types of federal housing assistance. This would greatly expand the number of individuals who would be at risk of being labeled "likely to become a public charge," and thus be denied their green cards.

This thesis sought to examine how the proposed rule would impact immigrants' decision making, specifically surrounding their choice to continue welfare-use. I hypothesized that immigrants would choose to forego the public benefits they currently use in order to optimize their future chances of obtaining legal permanent residence and the opportunities it brings. To gain evidence for this theory, I conducted ten in-depth personal interviews with immigrants who are currently without "legal" status in the U.S., but who may apply for their green cards in the near future. Also incorporated in this thesis' evidence is research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), which examined the potential macro-impact of the proposed rule becoming law.

The research conducted for this thesis provided some support for my hypothesis, but was most significant for the nuance it provided. The majority of interview participants stated that they would discontinue their use of public benefits in order to increase their chances of obtaining legal permanent resident status in the future, and to avoid a public charge determination. However, when asked about discontinuing welfare-use for their children, the majority of respondents said that they would not withdraw from participating in public assistance, showing that the effects of the proposed rule would likely depend on the individual immigrant and their family and dependent situation. This shows the rule could radically reshape legal immigration to the United States, should it be enacted in the coming months or years.