Joe Biden is at it again. He is changing immigration policy in favor of those seeking citizenship at the expense of American taxpayers. Last week DHS announced that a final rule, to be published in the Federal Register, will provide clarity and consistency for noncitizens on how the agency will administer the public charge ground of inadmissibility. During the Trump administration, the rule changed to disqualify legal migrants from filing for citizenship if they accepted public benefits, like food stamps or Medicaid. The Trump rule was meant to ease the burden to taxpayers footing the bill for these public benefits.

The Biden administration said that the change restores the historical understanding of a public charge. Think of it as a kinder, gentler approach to citizenship, or something.

“This action ensures fair and humane treatment of legal immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Consistent with America’s bedrock values, we will not penalize individuals for choosing to access the health benefits and other supplemental government services available to them.”

“In keeping with our nation’s values, this policy treats all those we serve with fairness and respect,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ur M. Jaddou. “Though there is still much to do to overcome confusion and fear, we will continue to work to break down barriers in the immigration system, restore faith and trust with our immigrant communities, and eliminate excessive burdens in the application process.”

Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders a noncitizen inadmissible if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.”

A noncitizen who is deemed likely to become a ‘public charge,’ meaning that they are likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, can be denied admission or lawful permanent residence (known colloquially as a green card). Prior to 2019, almost all non-cash government benefits such as Medicaid or nutrition assistance were excluded from consideration. The 2019 rule, which was ultimately vacated and is no longer in effect, resulted in a drop in enrollments in such programs among individuals who are not subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility, such as U.S. citizen children in mixed-status households. The publication of this rule in the Federal Register avoids these effects by formally codifying the historical understanding of the term.

What is wrong with denying citizenship to those deemed to be in need of permanent public support? I don’t think it is too much to ask that a new citizen of legal age be able to take care of himself or herself. Reliance on some social programs and benefits is ok now.

DHS will not consider in public charge determinations benefits received by family members other than the applicant. DHS will also not consider receipt of certain non-cash benefits for which noncitizens may be eligible. These benefits include: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or other nutrition programs, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid (other than for long-term institutionalization), housing benefits, any benefits related to immunizations or testing for communicable diseases, or other supplemental or special-purpose benefits.

Now that everyone is confused, DHS will develop a policy manual update to help USCIS officers apply the regulation. The final rule will be effective on December 23, 2022. It will be published in the Federal Register on September 9.

This is just the latest move by the Biden administration to undo immigration policy that was implemented by the previous administration. Joe Biden and DHS Secretary Mayorkas think this makes them humanitarians. Their lax treatment of the southern border and immigration policy in general all contributes to the Biden border crisis. They don’t care.

Not included in the new rule are those needing help with rent, utilities, housing or food stamps.

“Although the term ‘public charge’ does not have a single clear meaning, its basic thrust is clear: significant reliance on the government for support. This has been the longstanding purpose of the public charge ground of inadmissibility; individuals who are unable or unwilling to work to support themselves, and who do not have other nongovernmental means of support such as family members, assets, or sponsors, are at the core of the term ‘public charge.’ Individuals who are likely to primarily rely on their own resources, while secondarily relying on some government support, are less readily characterized as public charges. DHS does not believe that the term is best understood to include a person who receives benefits from the government to help to meet some needs but is not primarily dependent on the government and instead has one or more sources of independent income or resources upon which the individual primarily relies,” according to the new rule signed by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Migrant group advocates are happy with the change.

“We do consider this a win for immigrants in our broader fight,” Esther Reyes, director of Immigration Policy and Advocacy with Children’s Defense Fund-Texas said. “It is safe for eligible immigrant families to use health care, nutrition and housing programs without fear of consequences.”

Zenobia Lai, of the Houston Immigration Legal Services Collaborative, said the 2019 Trump-era changes to the rule caused “chilling effects.”

Anne Dunkelberg with the group Every Texan said there were significant drops in children enrolled for SNAP or food stamps, Medicaid and CHIPs rolls, especially in “mixed families,” those with citizen and non-citizen members, despite citizens qualifying for the programs.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton does not agree with the change. He announced Tuesday that Texas is leading a 14-state coalition that has filed a cert-stage brief in the Supreme Court to prevent the new rule from taking effect.

“With America in the midst of a recession and families across the country already facing record-high inflation, it’s completely reprehensible to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for hundreds of millions of dollars to sponsor more and more illegal aliens,” Paxton said in a statement. “But that’s exactly what Joe Biden and his entire administration have done by getting rid of the public-charge rule. I sincerely hope the Supreme Court decides to reexamine this case, because the Biden Administration’s actions have left Texas vulnerable, and our citizens deserve better.”

The other states in the coalition are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia. In June, the Supreme Court dismissed an effort by Republican attorneys general, led by Texas and Arizona, to mount a legal defense of Trump’s public charge rule and dismissed the case.

The brief filed by the coalition is 147 pages. It cites that “Congress has long prohibited immigration by any alien likely to become a ‘public charge.” Congress must clearly define “public charge” and the president must take into consideration the immigrant’s age, health, family status, assets, resources, and financial status, and education and skills.”

Stay tuned. Immigration and illegal migration is a hot issue this midterm cycle.