Posted on 08/13/2019 12:52:35 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Two California counties on Tuesday filed the first lawsuit against the Trump administration's new "public charge" rule that allows the government to deny entry or green cards to immigrants based on their use of public programs like food stamps and Medicaid.
Representatives for Santa Clara County and San Francisco filed the suit seeking a temporary injunction in the District Court for the Northern District of California.
The counties allege the rule change hurts "critical public health and safety-net systems, is arbitrary and capricious, flouts federal law, and seeks to usurp Congress’ authority by administratively repealing its longstanding family-based immigration system."
The plaintiffs allege that the projected drop in noncitizens using public services as a result of the new rule will “increase risks to the public health.”
They also argued that the rule is unlawful because it conflicts with “the broader congressional framework of U.S. immigration law.”
San Francisco and Santa Clara County successfully sued the administration over a rule that would have taken federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.
The Trump administration released the final version of the "public charge" rule on Monday. It is set to go into effect Oct. 15. The two California counties are pushing for the implementation date to be postponed.
Under the new definition of "public charge," participation in federal programs like food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid will be a negative factor when determining if an immigrant can be granted a green card or visas.
Previously, only receipt of significant direct cash subsidies was considered a strike against an applicant.
Along with factors like age and health, the new definition will also consider family size and credit score when evaluating candidates for visas and green cards.
The change was initially previewed in September and received more than 200,000 public comments online, many of which were critical of the policy.
Tuesday's lawsuit is likely the first of several legal challenges to the rule.
The National Immigration Law Center said it will will sue the administration.
The group's executive director Marielena Hincapieé said in a statement that the rule "will have a dire humanitarian impact, forcing some families to forego critical life-saving health care and nutrition."
"The damage will be felt for decades to come," she added.
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) announced Monday that she would sue over the rule, while California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) vowed to fight the rule.
The Trump administration has defended the rule change as a way to promote “the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.”
Trump has pursued multiple avenues to reduce illegal and legal immigration during his presidency. The majority of those efforts have been met with legal challenges.
Haven't they told us illegal aliens can't get public assistance?
What? Is it half their revenue or something?
Thank goodness the damage from the massive illegal invasion hasn't been felt for decades.
If they hadn't come here illegally, then they would have gotten "critical life-saving health care and nutrition" in their home countries. It's so basic and simple even she should be able to grok that.
But....they said they are all taxpayers. If they have a job why do they need public assistance?
I’ve been down on my luck and no matter how scared I was I never took a dime of public assistance. You live within your means.
In case we haven’t noticed, America has been “Balkanized.”
“...The group’s executive director Marielena Hincapieé said....
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) announced.....
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) vowed....”
Nuff said..1 male and 2 female communists...that’s all we need to know.
This is about the granting of green cards to legal immigrants.
“In case we haven’t noticed, America has been “Balkanized.”
So much so that the word is going to have to be changed to “Americanized” because we are making the Balkans look like Finland in comparison.
Something is not right here. This rule has not yet been adopted and requires a 120 day public notice. Also The article says that the rule received 200,000 negative public comments in September 2019???
I’m going off on a tangent here - but none of this leftist social-engineering and massive welfare spending would be possible if we had a currency that was linked to precious metals.
two counties with the highest taxes and living costs in Amerika.. and which (SF) is filthy as sh*t (because its streets are coated with the stuff)
wonder why nobody but rich Commies from PRC and welfare cases can afford to live there?
I’m just glad the frivolous lawsuits have begun! Since some Obama judge in some district will issue some nation-wide order stopping the implementation of these totally legal and appropriate commonsense requirements, the sooner they are reviewed by the US Supreme Court, the better.
This has been on the books since our first immigration laws came about...in the 1880’s IIRC.
Illegal aliens are receiving multiple welfare payments in California under multiple false identities. So are a lot of California residents including politicians and welfare administrators
Welfare fraud in California is pervasive, blatant and abusive
There is a reason the California Assembly has banned finger printing welfare recipients and workfare programs for welfare recipients. Fingerprinting would expose fraudulent recipients and it would be kind of interesting to see California welfare administration explain all the phantom welfare recipients who never show up for workfare
Welfare is a lifestyle in California and welfare fraud us an art form. Much of the welfare payments are from Federal monies so the rest of the country is funding the fraud
The plaintiffs allege that the projected drop in noncitizens using public services as a result of the new rule will “increase risks to the public health.”
In other words, the union will lose dues paying members because so many of them process the paperwork to give illegals welfare.
“Previewed in September” means September 2018,
Received 200,000 comments, SOME of which were negative.(Emphasis added.) In other words, at least 2 people thought it was a bad idea.
It’s been a slow slide into the cesspool but Santa Clara County, with all its wealthy corporations&inhabitants, and SF are neck and neck racing to the bottom of the foot trenches of socialism&anarchy in action.
and it’s all on our dime. In GooGle Ve Trust. not that GoGGledum hires illegals to program and analyze data much, so they just need a little help yaknow.
Skrew the people who came before and will come, it will all be flushed out in the end, well, thru the ‘GooGle Gate’ anyway, in a torrent of effluence&affluence.
California, proof Progre$$ive propaganda pounded into mushheads leaves a mess in their ‘woke’. uhh wake.
Yeah, why are they complaining, they have pensions. and now illegals do too.
In California, they are instructed not to ask if an applicant is a citizen.
“The change was initially previewed in September and received more than 200,000 public comments online, many of which were critical of the policy. “
Word twisters in action....it doesn’t say “the majority of which were against the policy” it says only “many of which”...hahahahahaha! So it doesn’t break down the numbers but the statement doesn’t use “the majority of which. Let’s say 50000 people opposed the policy...now that is “many” people; but let’s say 150000 people or the majority support the policy. Then that casts Trump’s new rules in a different populist light does it not?
Dishonest weasels....the left really hates America!
The fun just never ends with this crowd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.