Via Federal e-Rulemaking Portal October 22, 2021

Amanda Baran

Chief, Office of Policy and Strategy

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20529-2140

Re: Comments on Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility, 86 Fed. Reg. 47025 (Aug. 23, 2021)

DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0013

Doc. No. 2021-17837; RIN 1615-AC74

Dear Ms. Baran,

Brooklyn Defender Services (“BDS”) submits these comments to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility” published in 86 Fed. Reg. 47025 (Aug. 23, 2021).

BDS is a full-service public defender organization in Brooklyn, New York that provides multi-disciplinary and client-centered criminal defense, family defense, immigration, and civil legal services, along with social work and advocacy support. BDS represents low-income people in nearly 30,000 criminal, family, civil, and immigration proceedings each year. Since 2009, BDS has counseled, advised, or represented more than 15,000 clients in immigration matters including deportation defense, affirmative applications, advisals, and immigration consequence consultations in Brooklyn’s criminal court system. About a quarter of BDS’s criminal defense clients are foreign-born, roughly half of whom are not naturalized citizens and therefore are at risk of losing the opportunity to obtain lawful immigration status as a result of criminal or family defense cases. Our criminal-immigration specialists provide support and expertise on thousands of such cases. BDS’s immigration practice represents people in applications before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and in removal proceedings in New York’s immigration courts. BDS is one of three New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (“NYIFUP”) providers and has represented more than 1,500 people in detained deportation proceedings since the inception of the program in 2013. BDS’s immigration practice also conducts community outreach to communities in Brooklyn, New York including through Know Your Rights presentations.

BDS thanks DHS for the opportunity to provide input in advance of the forthcoming proposed rule on the public charge ground of inadmissibility. DHS should ensure that the public charge ground of inadmissibility does not disproportionately impact low-income or otherwise marginalized immigrants, as the Trump-era public charge rule did. The Trump administration engaged in a systematic dismantling of the immigration system to suppress access to lawful immigration status, employment authorization, and citizenship for low-income immigrants and immigrants of color. The Trump-era public charge rule and the fear it was meant to engender were central to that effort.¹ DHS now has the opportunity and responsibility to reverse the significant damage and chilling effect caused by the previous administration. Individuals should not have to choose between achieving a permanent immigration status in the United States and being able to feed and provide for their families during a period of financial stress. They should not fear that getting the medical care they need could cause them to be denied immigration status and separated from their families.

As such, DHS should codify regulations that narrowly define “public charge” in keeping with the established definition of the term and in recognition of the stabilizing impact that public benefits have for both low-income families and society in general. Specifically, the forthcoming rule should limit the types of public benefits that immigration officers are tasked with considering in applying the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Simultaneously, DHS should commit appropriate resources to educating the public to dispel the fear purposefully sowed by the Trump- era rule, and prioritize making the rule practical, clear, and easy to understand. Finally, in developing the forthcoming public charge rule, DHS must take into account the purpose and benefits of social welfare programs, which stem needless harm for individuals and their families and provide short-term and long-term economic and public health benefits to the communities they are part of.

A. DHS Should Recognize the Significant Harm the Public Charge Rule Has Had On Immigrant Communities and Take Affirmative Steps To Remedy These Harms

The upheaval of the Trump administration’s public charge rule—and its dismantling of the broader immigration system—had a tremendously negative effect on immigrant communities.² The overbroad Trump-era rule and regulations meant to instill fear in low-income immigrants affected access to an array of health services and resulted in damage to the health and livelihoods of immigrant families. Several research studies have confirmed the widespread fear and confusion felt by immigrant families throughout the country as a result of the Trump-era rule.³ In particular, DHS must acknowledge the disproportionately negative impact the Trump-era regulations had on low-income communities of color.⁴ We urge DHS to remedy this harm by ensuring that the forthcoming public charge regulations do not discriminate against low-income immigrant communities of color.

As a public defender office that provides multi-disciplinary legal representation to indigent Brooklyn residents, we saw first-hand the dangerous ripple effects of the Trump-era rule. BDS immigration staff directly serve low-income immigrant New Yorkers, many of whom are people of color. Since the Trump-era rule was revealed, our staff have fielded concerns from people we represent who expressed confusion and fear around receiving public benefits and asked whether to disenroll. Many of the people we represent became, and some continue to be, too scared to apply for benefits that they are legally entitled to, even after we advise them that the public charge rule change did not affect them. Individuals who are victims of trafficking, victims of crimes, and those who are already lawful permanent residents expressed concerns to our staff about the potential impact of the public charge rule on their ability to maintain legal status in the United States, even though the public charge ground would not apply to their cases. Individuals are foregoing public services that would support their health, access to food, and secure housing because of a fear that they would risk current or future immigration status. Individuals are also foregoing medical treatment because of these concerns. This confusion and fear deterred many of the people we represent and their families from obtaining important services that would have provided much needed stability, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For example, a woman BDS represents who is a survivor of domestic violence and has several U.S. citizen children wanted to apply for SNAP benefits for her children, but was afraid it would negatively impact her immigration case—pending humanitarian relief applications. Even after being advised that doing so would not impact her, she chose not to enroll out of an abundance of caution. Instead, after losing her job, she supported her children by relying on food pantries. She had to make the difficult decision of whether to give up her children’s access to consistent food benefits and the stability that would have given her family, out of fear of being barred from gaining legal status and being deported and separated from her children.

As another example, our office frequently conducts Know Your Rights presentations. Since 2017, as soon as the Trump administration’s changes to the public charge determination were leaked and reported on,⁵ we were often inundated with questions at these events about the risks of applying and using public benefits. Often those asking the questions were people who are not affected by the public charge rule—such as those applying for naturalization—but who were afraid, nonetheless. Often, regardless of the presentation topic, BDS staff were asked questions about the implications of the Trump-era changes to the public charge rule and about the current status of the rule. As recently as September 2021, questions about public charge have come up in community presentations.

Some of our staff who often work with clients who are Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) or Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) beneficiaries have found that eligible individuals may hesitate to proceed with applications for adjustment of status for fear of being denied based on a public charge determination. Particularly as the Trump-era public charge rule necessitated an extensive and burdensome review of the individual (and their family’s) financial situation when assessing eligibility for permanent residence, fears of denial based on public charge often became the main topic of conversation.

Social workers in our Immigration Practice also have seen up close how the fear of public benefit usage impacted people’s willingness to apply for any benefits at all. For example, during the COVID-19 public health crisis, one of our social workers assisted several individuals who were eligible for New York State Health Care. Each expressed hesitation around enrolling, asking if this would impact their ability to become U.S. citizens under the Trump-era public charge rule (even though the rule does not apply to naturalization). Recently, the social worker has been assisting clients with applying for the Excluded Workers Fund, a benefit in New York State for residents who lost work due to the pandemic and were ineligible for state or federal relief. Even now, several clients have asked if applying would impact their immigration applications under the public charge rule.

The Trump-era rule went into effect weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States, and the pandemic has shed a light on the deleterious consequences of disincentivizing the use of public benefits and spreading fear in immigrant communities. COVID-19 significantly impacted immigrant communities, particularly communities of color. According to the CDC, “[t]he COVID-19 pandemic has brought social and racial injustice and inequity to the forefront of public health” and ‘has unequally affected many racial and ethnic minority groups.”⁶ A recent analysis of the chilling effect of the Trump-era change to the public charge rule found that “even after Biden rescinded Trump’s rule, fear of public charge continued to discourage “many families from seeking much-needed help during COVID-19.”⁷ Many immigrants have even forgone COVID-19 testing or vaccination out of fear that they would be considered a government benefit that could make them a public charge. These vulnerable populations who needed care were also most likely to fear accessing it.

In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, access to food became a major concern for many low-income families. Food assistance programs, such as SNAP, became essential in assisting people during the COVID-19 crisis. According to an analysis presented by the New York City Department of Social Services and the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, between 2017 and 2019, “non-citizen immigrants who are eligible for and lawfully receiving SNAP benefits . . . either left the SNAP caseload or . . . decided not to enroll, at a higher rate than U.S. citizens in the program.”⁸ Many New Yorkers in need of medical care, food assistance, and other benefits and services were hesitant to seek the help they needed due to the widespread fears caused by the Trump-era public charge rule.

Even though the Trump-era public charge changes may no longer be in place, the harm that it has done to immigrant communities will reverberate for a very long time. The Trump-era public charge rule was a blatant attack on and directly discriminated against and excluded middle-income and low-income immigrant families and immigrants of color from being able to seek long-term stable status in the United States. Perhaps most importantly, the rule sent the erroneous message that low-income immigrants are not valuable community members and are not welcome in the United States.

Therefore, in drafting and implementing the forthcoming public charge rule on inadmissibility, DHS must make significant and affirmative efforts to repair the extensive damage caused by the past administration’s changes to the regulations regarding public charge and commit to educating the public to dispel the fear and confusion purposefully sowed.⁹

B. The Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility Should Be Narrowly Defined and Applied In Keeping With Its Historical Definition and the Benefits of Social Welfare Programs

In light of the above, BDS urges DHS to adopt a definition of “public charge” that allows immigrants to access public benefits for which they are eligible without fear of negative immigration consequences. Individuals should not have to choose between either being able to feed and care for themselves and their families during a rough period of financial stress, or being able to secure a permanent immigration status. Currently, DHS evaluates the likelihood that an immigrant will become a public charge using an unwarranted distinction between “cash” and “non- cash” benefits. While the receipt of “cash” benefits is considered a negative factor in the determination, the receipt of “non-cash” benefits is not. BDS proposes that DHS eliminate this distinction when it defines public charge in the forthcoming public charge rulemaking. Such a definition is well within the historical definition of public charge as envisioned by Congress, and it ensures that immigrants neither forgo public benefits that promote economic security and equality nor face severe immigration consequences for receiving benefits for which they are eligible.

In the context of U.S. immigration law, “public charge” has been consistently interpreted to refer only to people likely to become completely dependent on the government for their survival. Since its first appearance in the Immigration Act of 1882,¹⁰ the term “public charge” has been narrowly construed, as several courts have recognized.¹¹ The legislative history of the 1882 Act, for example, confirms that Congress intended the term to refer to individuals likely to become residents of “poor-houses and alms-houses.”¹² Moreover, as the forms of public benefits available to immigrants proliferated during the twentieth century, the Board of Immigration Appeals consistently interpreted “public charge” to exclude the mere “acceptance by an alien of services provided by a State . . . to its residents, services for which no specific charge is made.”¹³

The current distinction between “cash” and “non-cash” benefits originates in a 1999 Interim Field Guidance promulgated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) (the precursor immigration agency to DHS).¹⁴ No such distinction existed before. In the Interim Field Guidance, INS stated that an individual would likely become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence” (and therefore a public charge) if they were shown “(i) [to have received] public cash assistance for income maintenance or (ii) [to have been institutionalized] for long-term care at government expense.”¹⁵ As examples of these programs, INS listed Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”) cash assistance, state and local “General Assistance” cash, and long-term institutional care.¹⁶

More than two decades later, this is the definition that USCIS currently applies when making public charge determinations.¹⁷ After 20-plus years, there is no valid reason to expand the definition of “public charge” beyond the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, and indeed recent federal court decisions indicate that it would be unlawful for DHS to do so.¹⁸ While BDS urges that, at a minimum, no form of public benefits should be added to the list of those considered negative factors, BDS believes that DHS should consider going further. DHS should clarify that cash assistance is not a negative factor for purposes of the public charge determination, because contemporary cash assistance programs are not evidence of a likelihood of dependence on the state for subsistence. Rather, they are temporary forms of support for families who need financial assistance during a rough period in their lives. In that respect, they are indistinguishable from non- cash benefits like SNAP or Medicaid. DHS should make clear that receiving cash assistance in the form of TANF, state-funded cash assistance, or SSI provides no more evidence that an immigrant is likely to become a public charge than does receiving non-cash benefits.

The “cash” vs. “non-cash” distinction is not required, or even implied, by the established definition of public charge as contemplated by Congress. For instance, the TANF program was created by Congress in 1996 as a replacement for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (“AFDC”), which, since 1935, had provided cash and other assistance to poor families with no time limit.¹⁹ Congress put a specific time limit—60 months—on any family’s receipt of TANF cash assistance, with certain exceptions.²⁰ Congress also strengthened the work requirements for TANF beneficiaries, including requiring states to sanction individuals who failed to comply with them.²¹ These restrictions and the legislative history demonstrate that Congress intended TANF to be temporary.²² By its own terms, then, TANF clearly falls outside of the kinds of programs that indicate a likelihood that an immigrant will become a public charge under the term’s established definition. State-funded cash assistance falls into the same category. In the limited number of states where it is available, it is generally time-limited²³ and, therefore, does not indicate a likelihood of permanent dependence on government assistance.

Doing away with the distinction between “cash” and “non-cash” benefits will remove confusion and fear over the negative consequences of receiving public benefits and will thereby serve the larger goals of social welfare programs. Service providers like BDS will be able to advise immigrant on the public benefits they are eligible for without having to parse which may carry negative consequences and which may not. Immigrants and their families, in turn, will not have to navigate a muddled and intimidating system in which they are both eligible to receive certain benefits and also have been made to fear that those same benefits may lead to their deportation or the separation of their families. As one public health commentator noted, the clear message to immigrants and their families should be: “‘If you were eligible for it in the first place, it won’t count against you.”²⁴

Allowing individuals to access assistance programs for which they are eligible is not only humane and stems needless suffering, but also provides short-term and long-term benefits to the communities, cities, and states they are part of. Robust public benefits that provide a basic level of security to people when they need it are proven to reduce economic, public health, and social disparities.²⁵ When low-income immigrants in particular use public benefits, there is a positive impact on the national economy of the United States.²⁶ Immigrants largely use public benefits for short periods of time to supplement income from employment, and their use of public benefits contributes to economic mobility for their children and grandchildren.²⁷

Yet, even before the Trump-era rule, the distinction between “cash” and “non-cash” benefits led many immigrants and their families to forgo public benefits for which they were eligible. The Government itself explained in its Federal Register notice instituting the 1999 Field Guidance that: “confusion about the relationship between the receipt of public benefits and the concept of ‘public charge’ has deterred eligible aliens and their families, including U.S. citizen children, from seeking important health and nutrition benefits that they are legally entitled to receive. This reluctance to access benefits has an adverse impact not just on the potential recipients, but on public health and the general welfare.”²⁸ But the Government never explained how these “important public interests” would be furthered in a system where immigrants are penalized for receiving some benefits, i.e., cash benefits, for which they are eligible, but not others.²⁹ Indeed, after the 1999 Interim Field Guidance was implemented, immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members continued to underutilize public benefits for which they were eligible, leading to clear disparities, for example, in access to health care between immigrant and non- immigrant communities.³⁰ Evidence suggested that many feared losing immigration status for being deemed a public charge.³¹

Thus, simply returning to the system created by the 1999 Field Guidance only perpetuates the kind of confusion and chilling effect that immigrant communities experienced acutely after the Trump-era rule was published. Doing so would be especially damaging during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, when confusion about public charge has already led millions of immigrant essential worker to forgo benefits and medical care.³² A wiser and fairer approach is to eliminate the unnecessary distinction between “cash” and “non-cash” benefits and provide immigrants a clear message that they will not be penalized for accessing benefits for which they are eligible. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us the unpredictable and crushing nature of health emergencies and financial destabilization, and that we are all better off when we take care of each other during those rough times.

* * *

We request that DHS consider these recommendations in the forthcoming public charge grounds of inadmissibility rulemaking. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions regarding our comments. Thank you for considering our concerns and recommendations.

Sincerely, Catherine Gonzalez

Senior Staff Attorney & Policy Counsel

Kevin Siegel

Staff Attorney, Immigration Community Action Project

S. Lucas Marquez

Senior Staff Attorney, Civil Rights & Law Reform

***

¹ In 2018, the Trump administration proposed a public charge rule that made it significantly more burdensome for certain immigrants to show eligibility for permanent legal status because of their financial situation, including the past receipt of public benefits. See Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 83 Fed Reg 51114 (proposed Oct. 10, 2018); Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41292 (final Aug. 14, 2019).

² See, e.g., Caroline La Rochelle, et al., Thawing the Chill From Public Charge Will Take Time and Investment, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Policy Lab (Apr. 13, 2021), https://policylab.chop.edu/blog/thawing-chill- public-charge-will-take-time-and-investment (describing studies showing that the public charge rule decreases enrollment in public benefits).

³ See Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia PolicyLab, Thawing the Chill From Public Charge Will Take Time and Investment (Apr. 13, 2021), https://policylab.chop.edu/blog/thawing-chill-public-charge-will-take-time-and- investment; Susan H. Babey, PhD, Joelle Wolstein, PhD, MPP, MA, Riti Shimkhada, PhD, Ninez A. Ponce, PhD, MPP, Policy Brief: One in 4 Low-Income Immigrant Adults in California Avoided Public Benefit Programs, Likely Worsening Food Insecurity and Access to Health Care, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (Mar. 1, 2021), https://healthpolicy.ucla.edu/publications/search/pages/detail.aspx?PubID=2072; Sommers BD, Allen H, Bhanja A, Blendon RJ, Orav EJ, Epstein AM. Assessment of Perceptions of the Public Charge Rule Among Low-Income Adults in Texas. JAMA Netw Open. (Jul. 15, 2020), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768245; Zallman L, Finnegan KE, Himmelstein DU, Touw S, Woolhandler S. Implications of Changing Public Charge Immigration Rules for Children Who Need Medical Care. JAMA Pediatr. (Jul. 1, 2019), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2737098.

⁴ Several of the lawsuits challenging the Trump-era rule included claims that the rule violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment in light of its disproportionate impact on immigrants of color. See Complaint at 49–54, Cook County, Illinois v. McAleenan, 417 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (No. 19-cv-6334) (reviewing public comments about the impact of the Trump-era public charge rule on Latino communities and noting, id. at 54, that “90% of those chilled . . . would be immigrants of color.”); Mem. in Support of Plaintiffs’ Mot. for Preliminary Injunction at 31–34, Make the Road v Cuccinelli, 419 F. Supp. 3d 647 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (No. 19-cv-07993) (discussing the Trump-era rule’s disproportionate impact on immigrants of color and the racial animus shown by Trump administration officials). One court found, when it enjoined the rule, that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on its merits of the equal protection claim. See Make the Road, 419 F. Supp. 3d at 664–65.

⁵ WaPo, Trump administration circulates more draft immigration restrictions, focusing on protecting U.S. jobs (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draft- immigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c2- 30e57e57e05d_story.html?postshare=2611485889175975&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.6a4fef7afadf.

⁶ Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Health Equity Considerations & Racial & Ethnic Minority Groups (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html.

⁷ Joseph Daval, “Biden’s Shot At A Better Public Charge Rule, " Health Affairs Blog (Sept. 29, 2021), https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20210924.126765/full/; see also Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia PolicyLab, Thawing the Chill From Public Charge Will Take Time and Investment (Apr. 13, 2021), https://policylab.chop.edu/blog/thawing-chill-public-charge-will-take-time-and-investment

⁸ Fact Sheet: SNAP Enrollment Trends in New York City | June 2019, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/Fact-Sheet-June-2019.pdf

⁹ Hamutal Bernstein, Sara McTarnaghan, and Dulce Gonzalez, Urban Institute, Safety Net Access in the Context of the Public Charge Rule, Voices of Immigrant Families (August 2019)

¹⁰ 47th Cong. Ch. 376, 22 Stat. 214, § 2, Ex.6.

¹¹ See, e.g., New York v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 969 F.3d 42, 64–69 (2d Cir. 2020); City and Cty. of San Francisco v. USCIS, 981 F.3d 742, 751–52 (9th Cir. 2020).

¹² 13 Cong. Rec. 5109 (June 19, 1882) (statement of Rep. Davis.); see also Howe v. United States ex rel. Savitsky, 247 F. 292, 294 (2d Cir. 1917) (noting that public charge refers to “persons who were likely to become occupants of almshouses for want of means with which to support themselves in the future.”).

¹³ Matter of B-, 3 I. & N. Dec. 323, 324 (B.I.A. 1948); accord Matter of Perez, 15 I. & N. Dec. 136, 137 (B.I.A. 1974) (“The fact that an alien has been on welfare does not, by itself, establish that he or she is likely to become a public charge.”).

¹⁴ See Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility Public Charge Grounds, 64 Fed. Reg. 28689 (May 26, 1999).

¹⁵ Id. at 28689.

¹⁶ Id. at 28692.

¹⁷ See USCIS, Public Charge, https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/public-charge, last updated Aug. 19, 2021 (stating that the USCIS reverted to using the 1999 Interim Field Guidance after the Trump-era public charge rule was enjoined).

¹⁸ See, e.g., New York v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 408 F. Supp. 3d 334, 346–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (reversing DHS’ overly expansive definition of public charge in light of congressional intent and historical usage), aff’d 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020); Make the Road, 419 F. Supp. 3d at 660–62 (same), aff’d sub nom. 969 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2020); City and Cty. of San Francisco v. USCIS, 408 F. Supp. 3d 1057, 1061–1102 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (same), aff’d and modified 981 F.3d 742, 756–58 (9th Cir. 2020).

¹⁹ See CONG. RESEARCH SERV., THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) BLOCK GRANT: A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 8–10 (2021).

²⁰ 42 U.S.C. § 608(a)(7)(A–G).

²¹ 42 U.S.C. § 607.

²² 42 U.S.C § 601(a)(2) (“end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage”); Sen. R. No. 104-96, at 5 (1995) (switching from an “individual entitlement” to a time-limited assistance program “sends a clear message to welfare recipients that welfare assistance is temporary and is not intended to continue on year after year leading to welfare dependency”).

²³ See, e.g., Liz Schott, State General Assistance Programs Very Limited in Half the States and Nonexistent in Others, Despite Need, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (July 2, 2020), https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income- support/state-general-assistance-programs-very-limited-in-half-the-states; Safety Net Assistance (SNA), New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, https://otda.ny.gov/programs/temporary-assistance/, last accessed Oct. 11, 2021 (“Generally, you can receive cash SNA for a maximum of two years in a lifetime.”); General Assitance (WorkFirst NJ), New Jersey Dep’t of Human Servs., https://www.state.nj.us/humanservices/dfd/programs/assistance/, last accessed Oct. 11, 2021 (“Emergency assistance is limited to 12 months.”).

²⁴ Joseph Daval, Biden’s Shot At a Better Public Charge Rule, Health Affairs (Sept. 29, 2021), https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20210924.126765/full/.

²⁵ See, e.g., Arloc Sherman and Tazra Mitchell, Economic Security Programs Help Low-Income Children Succeed Over Long Term, Many Studies Find, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (July 17, 2017), https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/economic-security-programs-help-low-income-children- succeed-over.

²⁶ See Arloc Sherman, et al., Immigrants Contribute Greatly to U.S. Economy, Despite Administration’s “Public Charge” Rule Rationale, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Aug 15, 2019), https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite- administrations (reviewing study results showing that a large majority of immigrants receiving public assistance are employed).

²⁷ See id.

²⁸ 64 Fed. Reg. 28692 (emphasis added).

²⁹ Id.; see also Joseph Daval, The Problem with Public Charge, 130 YALE L. J. 998, 1044 (2021) (describing USCIS’ lack of a “principled justification” for distinguishing between “cash” and “non-cash” benefits).

³⁰ See, e.g., Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen, Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native- Born Citizens, CATO Institute (March 4, 2013), https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development- bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor (comparing rates of Medicaid, food stamps, and cash assistance between foreign-born and US-born eligible individuals); Michael Fix and Ron Haskins, Welfare Benefits for Non-citizens, Brookings Institute (Feb. 2, 2002), https://www.brookings.edu/research/welfare-benefits-for-non- citizens/ (“To sum up, welfare reform’s immigrant restrictions have led to a rapid decline in TANF and food stamp use among LPR families with children, citizen children in mixed status families, and refugees.”).

³¹ See, e.g., Lawrence O. Gostin, JD and Katharina Eva Ó Cathaori, PhD, Presidential Immigration Policies: Endangering Health and Well-being?, 317 J. OF THE AM. MED. ASS’N 1617 (2017), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article- abstract/2613724?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_conten t=jama.2018.16391.

³² See, e.g., Sharon Touw, Grace McCormack, David Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler, and Leah Zallman. Immigrant Essential Workers Likely Avoided Medicaid And SNAP Because Of A Change To The Public Charge Rule, Health Affairs, July 2021, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00059.