SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a "nation of takers" and most working-class America's as "takers."(Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Trump's Contempt for Working-Class Expressed in New Expanded Public Charge Rule
It is unimaginable that Congress would classify so many working-class and middle-class Americans as undesirable public charges.
Aug 15, 2019
This week the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially published regulations that radically expand the definition of an archaic immigration law term, public charge, to include various non-cash benefits that supplement earnings and other income, but are impossible to live on in the absence of other income. The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.
The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.Under the longstanding law and policy that existed before the new regulations, US citizens who marry foreign nationals had to show that their spouse was not likely to be institutionalized or end up wholly dependent on income-tested cash assistance (like SSI or TANF) in the future. Under the new rule, they will not be able to obtain visas, known as green cards, for their spouses if a front-line immigration official decides that their spouse is "likely at any time in the future" to receive even small amounts of Medicaid, SNAP, and certain other benefits.
The rule's expansiveness can be demonstrated by estimating how many US-born citizens receive benefits that would make their immigrant spouse or other immigrant family a public charge. Let's consider receipt of just one of the programs. Receiving Medicaid would suffice to make someone a public charge under this expanded definition. In 2017, 53.9 million US-born citizens, about 1-in-6 people in the United States, were enrolled in Medicaid.
Yet, very few of them have anything in common with the supposedly "undesirable" people living in almshouses and asylums that the public charge restriction originally targeted. Among all people covered by Medicaid today:
- Nearly half (29.7 million) lived in married-couple families.
- Forty-one percent lived in households with annual incomes of more than $50,000.
- Some 41 percent, 14.2 million, had post-secondary education beyond a high school degree (among enrollees age 18 and older).
- Some 8 million worked full-time, year-round, another 7.8 million also worked, but less than full-time, year-round (among enrollees age 18 to 64).
In short, the new rule is so broad that tens of millions of US-born citizens, including perhaps most working-class, US-born citizens, fall within the rule's definition of public charges.
It is unimaginable that Congress would classify so many working-class and middle-class Americans as undesirable public charges. To be sure, some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a "nation of takers" and most working-class America's as "takers." But Congress did not adopt such an expansive view when it added the public charge restriction to federal immigration law, and the Trump administration has no authority to do so now.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Shawn Fremstad
Shawn Fremstad is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress and a Senior Research Associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This week the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially published regulations that radically expand the definition of an archaic immigration law term, public charge, to include various non-cash benefits that supplement earnings and other income, but are impossible to live on in the absence of other income. The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.
The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.Under the longstanding law and policy that existed before the new regulations, US citizens who marry foreign nationals had to show that their spouse was not likely to be institutionalized or end up wholly dependent on income-tested cash assistance (like SSI or TANF) in the future. Under the new rule, they will not be able to obtain visas, known as green cards, for their spouses if a front-line immigration official decides that their spouse is "likely at any time in the future" to receive even small amounts of Medicaid, SNAP, and certain other benefits.
The rule's expansiveness can be demonstrated by estimating how many US-born citizens receive benefits that would make their immigrant spouse or other immigrant family a public charge. Let's consider receipt of just one of the programs. Receiving Medicaid would suffice to make someone a public charge under this expanded definition. In 2017, 53.9 million US-born citizens, about 1-in-6 people in the United States, were enrolled in Medicaid.
Yet, very few of them have anything in common with the supposedly "undesirable" people living in almshouses and asylums that the public charge restriction originally targeted. Among all people covered by Medicaid today:
- Nearly half (29.7 million) lived in married-couple families.
- Forty-one percent lived in households with annual incomes of more than $50,000.
- Some 41 percent, 14.2 million, had post-secondary education beyond a high school degree (among enrollees age 18 and older).
- Some 8 million worked full-time, year-round, another 7.8 million also worked, but less than full-time, year-round (among enrollees age 18 to 64).
In short, the new rule is so broad that tens of millions of US-born citizens, including perhaps most working-class, US-born citizens, fall within the rule's definition of public charges.
It is unimaginable that Congress would classify so many working-class and middle-class Americans as undesirable public charges. To be sure, some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a "nation of takers" and most working-class America's as "takers." But Congress did not adopt such an expansive view when it added the public charge restriction to federal immigration law, and the Trump administration has no authority to do so now.
Shawn Fremstad
Shawn Fremstad is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress and a Senior Research Associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This week the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially published regulations that radically expand the definition of an archaic immigration law term, public charge, to include various non-cash benefits that supplement earnings and other income, but are impossible to live on in the absence of other income. The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.
The people most impacted include millions of working-class and middle-class US citizens who plan to marry or are married to foreign nationals.Under the longstanding law and policy that existed before the new regulations, US citizens who marry foreign nationals had to show that their spouse was not likely to be institutionalized or end up wholly dependent on income-tested cash assistance (like SSI or TANF) in the future. Under the new rule, they will not be able to obtain visas, known as green cards, for their spouses if a front-line immigration official decides that their spouse is "likely at any time in the future" to receive even small amounts of Medicaid, SNAP, and certain other benefits.
The rule's expansiveness can be demonstrated by estimating how many US-born citizens receive benefits that would make their immigrant spouse or other immigrant family a public charge. Let's consider receipt of just one of the programs. Receiving Medicaid would suffice to make someone a public charge under this expanded definition. In 2017, 53.9 million US-born citizens, about 1-in-6 people in the United States, were enrolled in Medicaid.
Yet, very few of them have anything in common with the supposedly "undesirable" people living in almshouses and asylums that the public charge restriction originally targeted. Among all people covered by Medicaid today:
- Nearly half (29.7 million) lived in married-couple families.
- Forty-one percent lived in households with annual incomes of more than $50,000.
- Some 41 percent, 14.2 million, had post-secondary education beyond a high school degree (among enrollees age 18 and older).
- Some 8 million worked full-time, year-round, another 7.8 million also worked, but less than full-time, year-round (among enrollees age 18 to 64).
In short, the new rule is so broad that tens of millions of US-born citizens, including perhaps most working-class, US-born citizens, fall within the rule's definition of public charges.
It is unimaginable that Congress would classify so many working-class and middle-class Americans as undesirable public charges. To be sure, some conservative intellectuals have provocatively characterized the United States as a "nation of takers" and most working-class America's as "takers." But Congress did not adopt such an expansive view when it added the public charge restriction to federal immigration law, and the Trump administration has no authority to do so now.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.