An Oakland federal courtroom on Wednesday will be the scene of the latest confrontation between the Trump Administration and its opponents. U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton is scheduled to hear arguments for and against blocking the so-called public charge rule, which was officially released two months ago.
The rule, set to take effect Oct. 15, greatly expands the definition of who is considered a public charge when requesting to be admitted permanently into the U.S.
Until now, public charges have included recipients of public cash assistance, or individuals who have been institutionalized over the long term at the government's expense. The administration's change would expand that definition to take into consideration what kind of public benefits a person who wants to apply to settle in the U.S. may or may not use.
The new rule would make it harder for immigrants who apply for permanent legal status to obtain a green card if they've received public benefits such as food assistance, housing assistance and non-emergency medical aid, or if it's likely that they will use those benefits once in the U.S.
A request for a preliminary injunction by several advocacy groups, including Asian Americans Advancing Justice, is one of three such requests set for Wednesday's hearing. The City and County of San Francisco, along with Santa Clara County, filed another request, and Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed the third on behalf of the State of California.
While opponents of Trump's public charge rule are seeking to stop what they say would be harmful impacts on immigrants, they also say discussion of the rule in the last year has had a broader chilling effect, leading to confusion among immigrants about whether they should seek medical or food assistance. This effect, according to the rule's opponents, has even occurred among those who would not be affected by the change.
"This unlawful regulation harms and specifically targets immigrants of color," several immigration and health advocacy groups said in one of the lawsuits, filed four days after the rule was published.
Refugees and people granted asylum by the United States are exempt from the rule. It's unclear whether Hamilton will issue a ruling on Wednesday or at a later date.
ARE PEOPLE LEAVING PUBLIC BENEFITS BECAUSE OF THE RULE?
Plaintiffs in the advocates' lawsuit say the public charge rule will lead many people who fall — and do not fall — within the rule's parameters to go without health care, for fear they may jeopardize their immigration status or that of a relative.
"A lot of people are not making their health clinic appointments, and calling community organizations and asking for help in disenrolling," said Minju Cho, a lawyer for AAAJ in Los Angeles.
A recent LAist investigation found a drop in the number of Californians enrolled in public health and nutrition benefits when Trump's public charge rule was being publicly discussed in 2018 and 2019.
But observers said it's difficult to say whether most people who've left public benefit rolls have done so out of fear of running afoul of the public charge rule or for other reasons, like more money in their pocketbooks. So far, what's left is anecdotal evidence.
"Just the other day, one of our residents here, in our affordable senior housing, she came down and told me that she had disenrolled from Medi-Cal because she is sponsoring her son [for a green card]," said Jenny Seon, the immigrant rights project director at the Korean Resource Center in Los Angeles. "She's actually a U.S. citizen. I helped her re-enroll because I explained to her that it doesn't apply to her. And she was very convinced that it would affect her son's application."
For every person who comes forward, Seon added, there are others who do not.
"I feel very angry," she said. "It really is a scare to the immigrant community to get off of government benefits."
A study released two months ago by the California Budget & Policy Center found that when the federal government made changes to immigrant eligibility for public benefits decades ago, up to a third of those enrolled in such programs left the programs, regardless of whether the policy affected them. If similar disenrollment takes place after the public charge rule goes into effect, the study said, hundreds of thousands of Californians could be pushed into poverty.
"The public charge test is a wealth test," said Cho with AAAJ. "It is a test that says we only want certain, wealthy immigrants to come to the United States. This will have a disproportionate effect on non-white immigrants."
Cho said many of the immigrants she works with have come to the U.S. via family-based visas, including elders.
"Many people bring their parents or other elder relatives to the United States, and many of those immigrants don't speak English well or have significant assets," Cho said.
U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are expected to tell Hamilton that issuing the public charge rule is within the powers granted to the Executive branch by Congress.
ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW
"President Trump has once again delivered on his promise to the American people to enforce longstanding immigration law," said acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services director Ken Cuccinelli at an Aug. 12 briefing officially unveiling the public charge rule, according to a White House transcript.
There's a long history, Cuccinelli said, of U.S. law evaluating potential immigrants based on their ability to support themselves or their access to financial help from a friend, family member or other benefactor. Immigrants have had to submit sworn statements from U.S. residents that the applicant will be supported if he or she falls on hard times.
Cuccinelli said in August that the phrase "public charge" hadn't been properly defined by Congress or by federal regulations, so the administration created the rule.
He said the rule "encourages and ensures self-reliance and self-sufficiency for those seeking to come to, or to stay in the United States. It will also help promote immigrant success in the United States as they seek opportunity here."
Approval of a preliminary injunction by Hamilton would block the implementation of the rule and deal the Trump Administration a setback in their efforts to overhaul immigration rules. A denial of the request would likely set in motion greater scrutiny of how immigrants already in the U.S., or those seeking to come here, use public benefits.