On July 20, the Department of Homeland Security released the final rule which represents a radical change in interpreting the “public charge” test. For nearly 140 years, the public charge ground of inadmissibility affected only a tiny fraction of immigrants. The new rule revives the effort of the first Trump Administration to vastly expand what can be considered in a “public charge” test and places the unreviewable power to make that determination in the hands of individual immigration officers, without any guardrails or limits to their discretion.
The direct impact of the new rule is likely to prevent many people who have been patiently following the process from getting green cards.
In addition, however, the administration admits, and seems even to embrace, the idea that this will create a chilling effect that will stop millions of people who live in immigrant families from accessing public benefits for which they are fully eligible.
It’s that fear that immigration advocates must wrestle with in our own narratives about public charge. There is a delicate balance between informing the public of the harm Trump’s new policy would cause and helping to spread the very fear it intends to stoke in immigrant communities. Immigrant rights advocates must walk that line by fiercely condemning the proposed public charge rule and accompanying guidance, but also by helping to reassure immigrants to keep using the public benefits they are eligible for, and whose use will not likely impact their immigration status.
There is no question that one intended consequence of the proposed rule change is to make all immigrants afraid of using public benefits. It is part of the broader legislative agenda laid out by the Trump administration to cut immigrants out of the social safety net systems we have worked so hard to create at the state and federal levels. Immigrant rights advocates and others should avoid doing that job for them by being as clear as possible about who is not subject to a public charge test, providing information about effective dates and clarifying guidance, and advising immigrants to seek sound advice about their unique situation.
There is still one more layer to this narrative balance, which will help support immigrants in making what they understand to be the best decisions for their families. Even if immigration advocates strike the right narrative balance, some families inevitably will choose to opt out of social safety nets they need and qualify for if they feel it is in their families’ best interests. We must support people who make that decision as well.