{"id":11297,"date":"2018-10-24T10:24:20","date_gmt":"2018-10-24T14:24:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=11297"},"modified":"2018-10-24T10:24:20","modified_gmt":"2018-10-24T14:24:20","slug":"trump-administration-unveils-new-threat-to-immigrants-lawfully-in-the-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/trump-administration-unveils-new-threat-to-immigrants-lawfully-in-the-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Administration Unveils New Threat to Immigrants Lawfully in the United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Trump administration is poised to enact sweeping changes to American immigration policy by drastically restricting<\/a> who is eligible for green cards and eventual citizenship.<\/p>\n

Under longstanding law<\/a>, the \u201cGeneral Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas and Ineligible for Admission\u201d have included \u201c[a]ny alien who, in the opinion of the consular office . . . is likely at any time to become a public charge . . .\u201d If the government thinks that an individual\u2014based on their income, age, health, education level, etc.\u2014is likely to become dependent on government services, they have been authorized to deny that person\u2019s application to enter or remain in the United States.<\/p>\n

This \u201cpublic charge\u201d regulation has for decades been read quite narrowly. In 1999, the Clinton administration published guidance stipulating that it should be understood to include only those who received<\/a> \u201ccash-based assistance amounting to more than fifty per cent of a person\u2019s income.\u201d Only 3.7%<\/a> of noncitizens in the U.S. received cash benefits at all in 2013, so this regulation had a relatively small impact on the immigrant community.<\/p>\n

But on September 21, 2018, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen signed a notice of proposed rulemaking<\/a> redefining what constitutes a \u201cpublic charge\u201d and what \u201ctypes of public benefits . . . are considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations.\u201d This rule would withdraw the Clinton-era guidance and, in its place, \u201cDHS would consider the following public benefits\u201d:<\/p>\n