Plus, commentary on reconciliation bill 

[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fcis%2Fthe-public-charge-doctrine-from-colonial-times-to-today-podcast-ep-21 Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fcis%2Fthe-public-charge-doctrine-from-colonial-times-to-today-podcast-ep-21)
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
The Public Charge Doctrine: From Colonial Times to Today ([link removed])
Plus, commentary on amnesty for 8 million and massive increase in legal immigration in the budget bill
Follow Parsing Immigration Policy on Ricochet ([link removed]) , Apple Podcasts ([link removed]) , Amazon Music ([link removed]) , Spotify ([link removed]) , Stitcher ([link removed]) , Google Podcasts ([link removed])
Washington, D.C. (September 16, 2021) – The "public charge" doctrine – meaning that a person likely to have to be supported by taxpayers (a public charge) should not be permitted to immigrate – is one of the oldest elements of American immigration policy. Colonial Massachusetts enacted the earliest public charge law in 1645, while the first immigration law at the federal level, in 1882, likewise excluded immigrants who were likely to become a burden on taxpayers.

But then as now, the main question is how to define public charge.

In this week’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy ([link removed]) , Robert Law, the Center’s director of regulatory law and policy, walks listeners through the recent developments in this area, starting with 1996 legislation that sought to restrict immigrant access to welfare. But Congress left it to the executive to determine the specifics, and so the Clinton administration defined being a public charge as being primarily dependent on the government through cash welfare, but not non-cash welfare. That meant that a person could receive food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc., and still be considered "self-sufficient".

Law explained that the Trump administration issued a regulation that, among other things, eliminated the distinction between cash and non-cash forms of public assistance. Those measures were challenged in court long enough to run out the clock on the administration, allowing the incoming Biden administration to refuse to defend them in court, thus reverting for now to the Clinton-era rules.

To craft a more durable rule, the Biden USCIS has published advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which is essentially a call for the public and advocacy groups to provide their thoughts. The 60-day period for comment closes on October 22. Comments can be submitted here ([link removed]) .

In the closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, discusses the proposed amnesty for 8 million illegal aliens and the massive increase in legal immigration that House leadership has included in the budget reconciliation bill.
Visit Website ([link removed])
Donate ([link removed])
Related Articles:
USCIS Crowdsourcing Public Charge Revision ([link removed])
Why the Supreme Court Needs to Assert Itself Over the Public Charge Rule ([link removed])
Legal Immigration Will Implode Under ‘Budget Reconciliation’ Bill ([link removed])
Never-Ending Green Cards for Criminals in ‘Budget Reconciliation’ Bill ([link removed])
Amnesty in the Reconciliation Bill Could Cost Social Security and Medicare $1 Trillion ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** [link removed] ([link removed])
** Google Plus ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
** RSS ([link removed])
Copyright © 2021 Center for Immigration Studies, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
Center for Immigration Studies
1629 K St., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
USA

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.

** View this e-mail in your browser. ([link removed])

This is the Center for Immigration Studies CISNews e-mail list.