[A] proposed shift in federal policy affecting immigrants who access public benefits is causing alarm among health and legal advocates in Vermont.
Experts say the controversial expansion of the so-called “public charge” rule likely would impact few immigrants currently living in Vermont.
But the possibility of any impact at all – along with concern that immigrants might forgo essential benefits due to confusion about governmental policy – has spurred a call for Vermonters to send comments opposing the policy change to federal officials before a Dec. 10 deadline.
“We want to make sure there’s as much of a Vermont voice around this as possible,” said Drake Turner, food security advocacy manager at Hunger Free Vermont.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in September a proposed change to who might qualify as a “public charge,” an immigration term meaning a person who likely would be dependent on governmental programs and benefits.
Being identified as a potential “public charge” can be grounds for the federal government to deny permission for an immigrant to enter the United States or to become a permanent citizen via the Green Card process.
Public charge deliberations already take into account an immigrant’s participation or likely participation in benefit programs like Supplemental Security Income and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (called Reach Up in Vermont).
Homeland Security’s proposed rule would greatly expand the public charge test by allowing federal officials to consider an immigrant’s participation in programs including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (3SquaresVT); Medicare Part D low-income subsidies; and federally subsidized rental assistance.
Federal officials, in announcing the proposal, called it a clarification of “long-standing law.” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the new policy is “intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”
But some see it differently, saying the proposal could punish lawfully residing immigrants to the U.S.
If the federal policy is changed, “going hungry and living in fear is the future facing many brave, committed people on the path to lawful permanent residence and citizenship,” said Anore Horton, Hunger Free Vermont’s executive director. “We all know that basic human needs do not change based on immigration status, and it is simply un-American to only allow citizens to access critical, lifesaving supports like food, shelter and medical care.”
Hunger Free Vermont is leading an effort to push back against the federal change. That effort also includes University of Vermont Medical Center, the Vermont Medical Society, the Vermont Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont Foodbank and the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.
Hunger Free Vermont also released statements of support from Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger; U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt. Welch called the proposed rule “a scare tactic by the Trump administration to make immigrant families feel they must choose between feeding their families or staying together.”
While the new rule would allow federal officials to cast a wider net in searching for possible “public charges,” some say Vermont immigrants mostly won’t be affected. That’s because there are current and ongoing exceptions for refugees, asylum seekers or people applying for citizenship.
“It’s true that there are a number of different protected classes or New Americans who have not and would not be subjected to the public charge, and that includes the populations we have in Vermont,” Turner said.
At the same time, she added, “there definitely are immigrants in Vermont who would be subject to public charge.”
Also, the proposed rule change has been in the works for a while. That’s allowed concern to grow in immigrant communities, and some say that’s having an effect – even among those who would not be impacted by the new policy.
“Already, food banks across the country are seeing this take shape as immigrant families become wary of reaching out for any food assistance, whether from SNAP or through their local food shelf,” said John Sayles, chief executive officer of Vermont Foodbank.
Dr. Andrea Green, a Burlington pediatrician who said she specializes in immigrant health care, noted a similar phenomenon.
“Despite educating the immigrant families in my care about the proposal, ‘public charge’ is still creating anxiety and confusion,” Green wrote in a recent commentary published by VTDigger.org. “Recently, a family shared that they are hoping to bring grandmother to the United States to join them and help with child care, but now that means forgoing health insurance for the children. They also worry that without housing subsidies for rent, they will become homeless or have to choose between food and rent.”
Opponents of the rule change are asking for public comments to be submitted to the federal government before the policy is finalized. That can be done through instructions on the rule’s Federal Register posting or via advocacy group websites like Hunger Free Vermont or Protecting Immigrant Families.
Advocates also say immigrants should not stop receiving public benefits or decide not to apply simply because of the proposed federal rule. Even if it takes effect, the rule is not retroactive and doesn’t apply to current benefits, officials said.
Those who are considering terminating benefits or not applying for help are urged to first seek advice from groups like the South Royalton Legal Clinic, Vermont Legal Aid, the Association for Africans Living in Vermont or the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program.
