Eleven U.S. states have filed a motion in court challenging a White House move to repeal a Trump-era policy designed to ensure that immigrants can become economically self-sufficient in order to become U.S. citizens or obtain permanent residency.
The motion is being led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and is part of a lawsuit his office filed on Feb. 3 against a recent immigration policy issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). A recent DHS immigration policy prohibits nearly all deportations of illegal immigrants.
The new motion, filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after the Biden administration abandoned its defense of the statute in the Supreme Court, involves the Public Charge Rule in the immigration bill.
In a press conference on Thursday (March 11), Brovich, a Republican, said in response, “It is unreasonable to put our infrastructure and immigrant workers under tremendous strain as we respond to the health and economic devastation caused by the Epidemic.” “Regardless of one’s position on immigration reform, this reckless violation of federal law will only create another national crisis and put additional strain on our state and hard-working Arizona taxpayers.”
“Eliminating the ‘public affordability rule’ would cause harm to the states,” according to Brovich’s lawsuit, which would have “saved all states approximately $1.01 billion annually.”
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the 2018 rule, but the current administration noted in its request that all parties agreed and asked the court to dismiss the case. Immigration advocacy groups, social activists and some Democrats say the rule amounts to a wealth test for immigrants who seek citizenship or green cards.
The Legal Aid Society (LAS) said last month, “Trump’s rule erects an invisible wall in the form of a wealth test that discriminates against people on the basis of race as a condition for their legal immigration status.”
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas also said his department has halted implementation of the 2019 rule.
“The 2019 ‘public affordability rule’ is inconsistent with our nation’s values,” Mayorkas said in a statement on Wednesday. “It penalizes those who receive health benefits and other government services.”
DHS said a day earlier that it would revert to Clinton-era rules that require officials to treat immigrants who receive government cash benefits or long-term care in hospitals or other care facilities as people who live on public expense and pose a “public financial burden.”
In a statement, DHS said, “Under the 1999 interim field guidance, DHS will not consider immigrants who receive Medicaid (other than Medicaid for long-term institutionalization), public housing, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as being in need of public assistance. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as a reason for making a ‘public financial burden inadmissibility’ determination.” The agency also said that receipt of vaccinations and other medical treatment resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak would also not be considered a “public financial burden.
The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia joined Brovich’s lawsuit.
In another case, Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit against the White House’s 100-day deportation freeze order. In February, a federal judge twice issued a stay of the freeze, followed by an indefinite stay of Biden’s presidential order.
Arizona and Montana are also challenging the White House’s “Interim Guidance,” issued Feb. 18 by the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement). .
Recent Comments