Hosted by the U.S. Child Poverty Action Group, First Focus, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives, in collaboration with Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Congressman Danny Davis
Children continue to disproportionately experience poverty in the United States, and are 62 percent more likely to experience poverty than adults. Yet while the U.S. child poverty rate remains stubbornly high, there is no long-term national strategy, or even a national dialogue, to address child poverty in the U.S. and the negative outcomes associated with it. We know it does not have to be this way. When countries prioritize their children, it results in lower child poverty rates and improved economic outcomes for all of society.
Concurrent with the release of this study, the U.S. Child Poverty Action Group, a partnership of over 20 national organizations, launched a national campaign, End Child Poverty U.S., to garner collective action in calling upon the federal government to make child poverty a priority through setting a national target to cut our child poverty rate in half within 10 years.
John K. Roman, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Economics, Justice and Society Group, NORC, University of Chicago and Co-Director of the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives
Christine-James Brown, President and CEO, Child Welfare League of America and NAS Study Committee Member, Building an Agenda to Reduce the Number of Children in Poverty by Half in 10 Years
Dr. Benard Dreyer, Professor of Pediatrics and Director of Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics, NYU School of Medicine, Director of Pediatrics, Bellevue Hospital Center, Past President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, NAS Study Committee Member, Building an Agenda to Reduce the Number of Children in Poverty by Half in 10 Years
Dr. Angela Diaz MD, PhD, Director, Mount Sinai Adolescent Health Center and Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Every child deserves the opportunity to be raised in a stable and supportive household. For foster children and youth, the evidence is clear that they fare much better in family-like settings. The challenge has been, however, that there are far more children in need of foster homes than there are foster parents. That is why the Trump administration’s decision to shrink the pool of available foster parents by allowing faith-based foster care providers to deny prospective foster parents the opportunity to foster or adopt children based solely on their faith is particularly harmful for children in foster care and the foster care system.
In January, the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced its approval of South
Carolina’s request for an exemption from a recently implemented
regulation which prohibits federal agencies from providing private
entities with federal funding if they practice discrimination on the basis of race,
gender, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, and gender
identification, and other unlawful classifications. This waiver request,
submitted on February 27, 2018, came
from South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster after South Carolina notified Miracle
Hill Ministries, (a faith-based foster care provider in Greeneville, SC) that
their discriminatory practice of denying non-Christian parents from fostering
or adopting children jeopardized their federal funding.
The issue of
allowing federally-funded, faith-based agencies to refuse to work with certain
groups is far from specific to South Carolina. The ACLU is currently
representing couples in both Michigan and Philadelphia in cases stemming from
the discriminatory practices of child-placement agencies. Both cases involve
same-sex couples. (In Dumont v. Lyon,
the ACLU filed suits against Michigan for allowing this practice, but in Fulton v.
Philadelphia, the ACLU is representing two non-profits in a fight to
uphold the city’s ban on such discriminatory practices. These cases have a
strong chance of making it to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming years.
Wagner, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of HHS’ Administration for
Children and Families, justified this decision by arguing that
the Obama Administration had reached beyond the limits of its power in enacting
its 2016 regulation. The regulation prohibits the denial
of HHS benefits and programs on “non-merit factors” such as age, disability,
sex, race, gender, religion, etc. Wagner bolstered this argument with a 2014
which drastically expanded the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The
Trump Administration is not merely using the RFRA to exploit a loophole in the
Obama-era regulation, but to counteract its effect entirely.
Lynn Johnson, assistant
secretary of HHS’ Administration for Children and Families stated that this
decision “[. . .] protects minors who are in need of as many options as
possible for being placed in loving foster families.” But with a foster care
system currently overflowing with children in need of a home, child-placement
agencies should not be in the business of denying children a home based on
their subjective belief that prospective parents don’t adhere to Christian
According to the
most recent annual report by the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS), the past five years have marked a steady increase in
the number of children and youth living in the foster care system, with 442,995
in foster care in 2017. While the number of entries into foster care may have
dropped between the 2016 and the 2017 AFCARS reports, the number of youth exiting
the system has also declined.
immediate effects this decision may have on children and those trying to foster
or adopt them are grim, the real potential for disaster lies in the precedent
this sets moving forward. By approving South Carolina’s request to discriminate,
the Department of Health and Human Services is opening the door to allow other federally
funded agencies to withhold their services from individuals of different
faiths, or individuals with lifestyles which don’t adhere to that particular
organization’s beliefs. HHS provides subsidies for organizations involved in
industries which are crucial to the well-being of millions of Americans, such
as health care, social services, and disease prevention and control. Well-established
programs such as Headtart, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Home Visiting, and even the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) are all funded by the federal government. The idea of agencies
denying individuals any of the benefits of these, and other federal programs
based solely on their religious beliefs is disturbing.
In no way is
this issue unique to South Carolina. Kansas and Oklahoma
also passed laws in 2018 which permitted faith-based child welfare agencies to
discriminate against foster/adoptive parents on the basis of religion, joining
the list of seven
other states with such laws in place. According to The Chronicle of Social Change,
the following “GOP ‘Trifecta’ States” (states in which the governor is a
Republican, and both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by
Republicans) are the most likely to see attempts at passing similar bills: Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio,
Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
statistics highlight the growing disparity in the number of children in need of
a permanent home, and the number of individuals or couples willing and/or
qualified to provide that home. Most taxpaying Americans would be outraged to
learn that their hard-earned money is being spent to support agencies that
actively and openly discriminate based on their faith or lifestyle. Denying
children access to a safe and supportive home based on the religion, race, or
gender of prospective parents not only flies in the face of legal precedent,
but is immoral, regressive, and should cause children’s advocates grave
For the sake of
children in the foster care system, First Focus Campaign for Children calls on
advocates everywhere to contact state and federal lawmakers in order to voice
your strong objection to this waiver approval and all other discriminatory acts
which reduce the number of suitable foster parents.
Learning to drive is an exciting and nearly essential milestone for young people today. Yet, for youth exiting foster care, this rite of passage is often littered with obstacles — from DMV fees to costly automobile insurance rates.
“Youth in foster care meet challenges each step of the way — when applying for their permit, enrolling in driver’s education programs, participating in supervised driving, purchasing cars and obtaining car insurance,” writes Lucy Johnston-Walsh a law professor who runs the Children’s Advocacy Clinic for Penn State’s School of Law.
This is a topic Johnston-Walsh knows well. She authored Behind the Wheel — a report based on research funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation — after a county policy in Pennsylvania banned her longtime client, Lara Hollinger, 17, from owning a car. The issue? Hollinger’s foster care status.
Behind the Wheel identifies common challenges that young people like Hollinger face and recommends policy moves that states can make to help these youth get behind the wheel — and get ahead in life. This advice includes:
allocating state funding to pay for car insurance, driver education courses, and licensing fees for foster youth;
simplifying permit and license application forms to not assign liability to the adult signer of application forms; and
working to ensure that foster youth have access to driver training by offering programs and providing funding to incorporate this training into the transition plans for independence.
In 2017, Hollinger and Johnston-Walsh brought their concerns to a local judge and argued — successfully — that the policy limited a young person’s independence and penalized them for circumstances beyond their control.
Despite this progress, Hollinger — who eventually left care over this issue — points out that there is still more work to do. “I think a lot of people still need to understand how much harder it is to get insurance or to get the hours behind the wheel when you are in care,” she says.
Beyond the Report
In addition to supporting Johnston-Walsh’s research, the Foundation has also funded the State Policy Advocacy & Reform Center (SPARC), a nonpartisan center focused on supporting state advocates who are pursuing child welfare reforms. In conjunction with the nonprofit First Focus, SPARC has launched Going Places — an initiative focused on identifying and advancing policy solutions that can help young people in foster care obtain a driver’s license.
As part of these efforts, Going Places profiles programs that are helping youth in care get on the road. One such success story — which Behind the Wheel touts as a model to follow — is Keys to Independence, a three-year pilot created by the state legislature in Florida. The program allows reimbursements on learner’s and driver’s license fees, testing fees, traffic and substance abuse courses, driver’s education courses and insurance costs for youth in foster care.
This week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) reintroduced The Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act. Almost every worker in the United States will need to take time off of work at some point to care for a new child, ailing family member, or themselves. However, only a marginal amount of the US workforce is able to take such family or medical leave while still receiving pay from their employer.
While the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), adopted over 25 years ago, provides critical job protection for millions of workers in the U.S., only about 60 percent of the nation’s workforce is eligible for protection, and there are many more employees who cannot afford to take leave that is unpaid. Currently, only 15% of American workers have access to paid leave, and those who do not must choose between losing valuable income or providing loved ones, and themselves, the care they need.
The United States is the only OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) country that does not provide paid maternity leave nationwide. More than half of the nations in the OECD provide paternity leave to fathers, and paid leave is given to both parents in 23 OECD countries.
The FAMILY Act would make workers in all companies, regardless of size, eligible for up to 12 weeks of partial income for family and medical leave, including pregnancy, childbirth recovery, serious health condition of a child, parent, spouse or domestic partner, birth or adoption of a child and/or military caregiving and leave. Workers could earn 66% of their monthly wages, up to a capped amount. If passed, this legislation would explicitly prohibit employers from discriminating or firing employees who have applied for or taken paid family and medical leave.
The act would also establish the Office of Paid Family and Medical Leave, a new office within the Social Security Administration designed to administer these benefits. The costs for providing this leave would be covered by small employee and employer payroll contributions of two cents per $10 in wages, which comes to around $1.50 a week for the average worker. This is a small price to pay for something that will likely benefit every worker at some point in their life.
Access to paid family leave promotes healthy child development and promotes family economic security. It gives parents a chance to adequately care for their newborns or children with special health care needs. For example, men are more involved with their child’s direct care when they are able to take off two or more weeks after the birth of their child and women are available to breastfeed their newborn. The presence of fathers, domestic partners, and other significant others would lessen the workload required of new mothers while simultaneously combating unhealthy stereotypes regarding familial roles and allowing mothers to return to the workforce faster.
The Center for American Progress estimates that working families lose around $20.6 billion in wages annually due to a lack of paid family and medical leave. The FAMILY Act would provide working parents with the economic security needed to provide for and raise healthy, happy children.
Paid family and medical leave also promotes family financial independence. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, new mothers who take paid leave are over 50% more likely to receive a future pay increase. Mothers who do not take paid leave, on the other hand, are 39% more likely to need public assistance to care for their family than those who take paid maternity leave.
As an organization committed to securing the economic security of America’s families and children, First Focus Campaign for Children applauds and supports the reintroduction of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to call up legislation that advances a proposal from President Trump to reopen the federal government in addition to authorizing billions of dollars for a border wall and instituting a policy that would significantly restrict asylum for children from Central America.
At first glance, the administration’s plan appears to restore an Obama-era program when the U.S. government recognized that children were fleeing their home countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala to escape gang violence, gang recruitment, and horrific violent crimes against women and young girls.
Unfortunately, the 3-year program in the proposed spending bill differs drastically from the original CAM program. Instead it serves as a deterrent for asylum seekers rather than an additional form of support for vulnerable children. The proposal would effectively ban asylum for minors who apply at the U.S. border and for those who do not meet the new eligibility requirement of having a “qualified parent or guardian” already living in the United States.
“A national of El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras who is younger than 18 years of age and is outside of the U.S. as of the date of the enactment of the Central American Minors Protection Act of 2019 shall be ineligible for asylum unless—‘‘(I) the alien submits an application for asylum outside of the U.S. at a Designated Application Processing Center in Central America…”
In addition to the new requirements for eligibility, the logistics of the program include limiting application approvals to 15,000 per year, imposing a fee to cover the cost of the application, and shifting the burden of applying for asylum onto traumatized children. According to Gregory Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the program isn’t slated to be operational for nearly a year (240 days) after the bill’s enactment, but these minors are immediately excluded from asylum at the border.
Alarmingly, this proposal also guts protections for unaccompanied children in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) to allow for the deportation of minors to both contiguous and non-contiguous countries without judicial review. This means that children presenting themselves at the border to seek refuge would be denied the ability to have their case heard by an immigration judge and expeditiously sent back into the dangerous situations from which they were fleeing.
Trump has used the plight of Central American children to advance his anti-immigrant agenda. On multiple occasions, he expressed a desire to keep immigrant and refugee children safe through closing “legal loopholes.” Ultimately, the administration’s recent proposal to end the very government shutdown that it began reveals a harsh reality—that the best interests of children is not the driving force behind its agenda.
This week, Senators Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray, as well as Representatives Bobby Scott, Mark Pocan, Stephanie Murphy, and several others reintroduced the Raise the Wage Act, which would raise the national minimum wage annually, until it reaches $15 per hour in 5 years. The number of cosponsors for this bill has grown exponentially over the past two years, now reaching 31 in the Senate, and 181 in the House.
The current nationwide minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, or, as Sen. Sanders refers to it, the “starvation wage,” has not been increased since 2009.
If passed, the Raise the Wage Act of 2019 would increase the minimum wage to $8.55 per hour this year, and then rise every year until reaching $15 by the year 2024. The bill would also eliminate the subminimum wage for tipped employees (currently $2.13), as well as the ability of certified employers to pay disabled workers subminimum wage.
The prospect of doubling the minimum wage by 2024 presents an opportunity to not only improve the lives of American workers, but also their children. According to a fact sheet put out this week by the Economic Policy Institute, 41 million workers would benefit from this raise in pay, 28% of whom have children to support.
This means that over 11 million children would directly feel the positive effects of a new minimum wage.
According to a 2015 report by the Children’s Defense Fund, parents working full-time at the federal minimum wage and supporting two children earn $4,700 below the poverty level. Increasing the wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would reduce child poverty by 4% and lift 400,000 children out of poverty.
States such as Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Maine, and others have approved raising their minimum wages in recent years. For example, Maine voters approved a referendum to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour in 2016. This wage has gradually increased each year since and is currently $11 an hour as of January 1, 2019.
The benefits of this are already tangible to Maine’s workforce and their children. According to the Maine Center for Economic Policy, 44,300 children (17%) lived in households which earned less than the poverty level in 2016. That number dropped 4% to 33,000 children (13%) in 2017 after just one year of increasing the minimum wage.
According to researchers at Indiana University, raising minimum wage by a mere $1 would contribute to a 9.6% decline in reports of neglect of children between the ages 0-12. Parents who live in a constant state of financial instability and struggle to provide enough resources for their children often suffer from stress, anxiety, and depression, making it more difficult to respond to their children’s emotional needs. Increased income therefore improves financial stability, improves the physical and mental health of children and families and in turn, child maltreatment rates.
First Focus Campaign for Children is proud to support the Raise the Wage Act of 2019, which would empower millions of American workers with children to provide critical resources such as nutritious food, health care, adequate shelter, warm clothing, and educational materials to support their children’s healthy development.
This year provides a critical opportunity for progress. In the next few months, the National Academy of Sciences will be releasing a landmark consensus study focused on child poverty, which will include an analysis of current research around the impact of child poverty on child well-being, the economic costs to our society, and an examination of current domestic and international efforts to reduce child poverty.
By also including a set of nonpartisan, evidence-based recommendations to cut the child poverty rate in half within a decade, the report will lend credibility to the idea that child poverty is a solvable problem as well as provide a tool in raising awareness.
First Focus leads the U.S. Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), a partnership of over 20 national organizations dedicated to cutting child poverty in half within a decade. For the past two years, CPAG has worked to elevate the issue of child poverty in the U.S. though information sharing, policy education, and direct advocacy. In April 2018 we released Our Kids, Our Future, a compendium of over 20 policy solutions that can significantly reduce child poverty and support a better quality of life for all children.
We know from the United Kingdom that child poverty is a solvable problem when there is the political will to address it. This winter, CPAG will launch a national campaign, End Child Poverty U.S., to build political will and urge federal lawmakers to establish a national target to cut child poverty in half with a decade and eliminate it within 20 years.
The future of our nation depends up on the well-being and success of our children. We encourage lawmakers to make a resolution in 2019 to prioritize reducing child poverty.
On Tuesday, the Federal School Safety Commission formed in the wake of the tragic school shootings in Parkland, Florida, issued its report with recommendations on policies to improve school safety. Unfortunately, the report recommends the rescission of “Rethinking Discipline,” the policy guidance that the Department of Education and Department of Justice issued in 2014 to address one of the main drivers of the school-to-prison pipeline: glaring disparities in school discipline of black and disabled children and youth that pushes them out of school and into the criminal justice system. Rescinding the Rethinking Discipline guidance will not make schools safer. Instead, it will only serve to increase high school drop-out rates, push greater numbers of students into our criminal justice system, contribute to hostile school climates, and cost our nation billions in criminal justice and other expenditures.
For instance, in 2014, black students comprised 15.5 percent of all public-school students, yet represented 39 percent of students suspended from school in 2014. To put this disparity in context, though white students outnumbered black students by 17 million in K-12 public schools in 2014, nearly 176,000 more black students were suspended from school than their white peers. Meanwhile, black girls are suspended more than 5 times as often as white girls and at higher rates than any other racial group. Unfortunately, these disparities begin as early as preschool. Black children are just 18 percent of public preschoolers, yet nearly one-half of preschool children with more than one suspension are African American.
In addition to the devastating impacts on students of color and disabled students, exclusionary disciplinary measures bear a steep national price tag. Students who drop out of school earn less money, and thus pay less in taxes. They are less likely to have health insurance, leading to worse health outcomes and greater health care expenditures. They are more likely be arrested and incarcerated, which costs taxpayers in prison costs. And they are more likely to rely on public assistance. According to the UCLA Civil Rights Project, the suspension of 67,000 10th grade students over one year cost our nation in excess of $35 billion annually.
The Federal School Safety Commission’s misguided recommendation to rescind the guidance ignores what the facts clearly tell us. The school-to-prison pipeline reduces educational opportunities and perpetuates racial disparities, fuels youth entering our juvenile justice system, and contributes to hostile school environments. The recommendation also stands in stark contrast to Congress’s bipartisan passage of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018, which requires states to track data on racial disparities in the juvenile justice system and develop concrete plans to address those disparities, which include addressing the root causes of youth entering the criminal justice system.
We urge the Federal School Safety Commission and Secretary DeVos to reject the Commission’s recommendations and instead work with school districts to expand upon the 201guidance to eliminate the school to prison pipeline.
Because Congress has neglected to act, the future for more than 800,000 recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program still remains uncertain. In 2016, the Trump administration eliminated the DACA program which provided protections for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. DACA recipients are young people who have proven their dedication to this nation and have shown incredible resilience in their ability to pursue their dreams of becoming productive citizens of the United States. In addition, they have continued to further their education, strengthen their job skills, and volunteer to protect their communities all without the certainty of what their future may hold.
DACA recipients and their families, including 200,000 U.S. citizen children, are facing a great deal of uncertainty and fear each day that passes without a clear path forward. Congress has a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of the children who were brought to this country at no fault of their own and have grown up only knowing the United States as their home.
Three Courts have challenged the administration’s decision to end the DACA Program. In November the Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the Supreme Court to bypass three Federal Courts of Appeals in New York, Washington, D.C., and California. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to expedite this case to the Supreme Court, where their ultimate goal is to end the DACA program. Learn more about the ongoing litigation here from the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
Similarly, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a temporary immigrant status granted by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to individuals from designated foreign countries due to crisis situations such as ongoing civil war, natural disasters or national epidemics. The program was created by Congress in 1990 as a form of humanitarian relief.
The Trump administration has ended TPS for 6 out of 10 designated countries since 2017: Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Nepal, and Honduras. There are approximately 325,000 TPS beneficiaries currently living in the United States. Because the conditions that warranted this TPS designation have continued to persist in countries such as El Salvador, which has the highest number of TPS recipients, many beneficiaries have resided legally in the United States for more than two decades. They have established lives, have U.S. born children, have mortgages, participate in the workforce, and contribute to the national economy. According to one report more than one third of TPS recipients are homeowners and will contribute $164 billion dollars to the United States GDP over the next decade. View our TPS Fact Sheet here.
Collectively, TPS beneficiaries from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti alone have over 273,200 US-born children. Without a protected immigration status, these families will be forced to make desperate decisions. Jose Urias, TPS recipient and spokesperson for the National TPS Alliance recently stated at a congressional briefing, “We are the next wave of family separations.”
Parents must contemplate returning to a region with their children at a time when there is a mass exodus of children and young people fleeing gang violence and extreme poverty. Other families may choose to stay in the U.S. and risk working without legal authorization. This means that after decades of providing for their families they will be forced to look over their shoulders and fear separation from their loved ones on a daily basis. Congress must recognize that terminating these protections will be devastating for hundreds of thousands of families and children.
In October US District Judge Edward Chen granted a preliminary injunction stopping the government from terminating TPS for immigrants from Sudan, El Salvador, Haiti and Nicaragua.
The lawsuit filed in California on behalf of the US citizen children of TPS holders says that the government’s cancellation of protected status for long-term residents from Haiti and El Salvador “violates the constitutional rights of school-age United States citizen children of TPS holders, by presenting them with an impossible choice: they must either leave their country or live without their parents.”
Learn more about ongoing TPS litigation here from the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. (CLINIC).
Congressional Action Needed:
The Dream Act introduced by Sens. Durbin (D-IL) and Graham (R-SC) provides conditional legal status and a path to citizenship for certain long-term residents who entered the U.S. as children (known as Dreamers). Rep. Roybal-Allard has introduced the Dream Act in the House
In the Senate, Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD.), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) sponsored the SECURE Act to protect TPS recipients. “Our bill would provide a path to citizenship for those who have been living, working and raising U.S. citizen children in the United States for two decades. These individuals have established deep roots in their communities. It would be cruel and inhumane to separate these families.”
In the House Rep. Nydia Velazquez introduced H.R. 4253 the American Promise Act that would allow recipients of TPS to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. Similarly, Rep. Yvette Clark introduced H.R. 4384, the ASPIRE TPS Act.
Family unity is often a key motivation for immigration. Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who seek to sponsor their immediate family members may do so via a policy commonly known as family unification or family-based immigration.
Unfortunately, immigration hardliners refer to this policy as “chain migration” in an attempt to dehumanize immigrants and imply an effort to circumvent immigration procedures. The Trump administration has been among those to call for an end to family-based immigration.
In 2017, the administration supported legislation that would have ended some of the family-based categories that are in place and made deep cuts to family-based immigration. Additionally, the administration has had no misgivings about their assault on migrant families in their attempts to deter both legal and illegal immigration. Separating children from their parents at the border, ending prosecutorial discretion for parents of minor children, ending protections for families fleeing horrific conditions in their home countries, and arresting family sponsors of unaccompanied children are just a few of the horrific ways in which the administration has targeted families.
Similarly, the proposed public charge rule released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on October 10 will have a devastating effect on families, and would be a direct attempt by the administration to cut family-based immigration. This proposed rule aims to drastically redefine what it means to be deemed a public charge and ultimately denied entrance to the U.S. or lawful permanent residency by punishing working class families for use of public assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and Home Energy Assistance Programs.
Those primarily affected by this proposed rule would be those applying through family-based visa petitions as the rule applies to two categories of immigrants:
Those seeking admission to the United States.
Those lawfully present in the U.S. seeking a change of status to obtain a green card or lawful permanent residency (LPR).
According to DHS, in 2016 approximately 68% of the total persons who obtained LPR status were immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or had a family-based sponsor. The proposed rule would make it more difficult for families to stay together or reunify, as families will be forced to meet the new requirements for a wide range of demands including relatively high income, education, language skills, and good health.
According to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), “Many citizens, both U.S. and foreign born, would encounter new barriers to uniting with their family members.” The current application of the public charge test affects approximately 3 percent of family-based visas and applicants. DHS estimates that the new rule would drastically expand this test to affect approximately 382,000 family-based immigrants within the United States per year. MPI reports that in addition more than 550,00 persons living abroad would be subject to the rule as well. Implementing this rule will negatively impact the ability of low-income families to meet their basic needs and will unnecessarily result in family separations.
The open comment period for this proposed rule will end on December 10, 2018. First Focus strongly opposes this proposed rule and urges both individuals and organizations to submit comments fight this rule.