The Trump Administration announced plans to start screening immigration applications for a reliance on public healthcare, housing, and food assistance. In response, the City of New Haven announced Tuesday that it has joined 15 other municipalities in formally opposing the proposed change. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the proposed policy change on Nov. 19, publicizing an intent to rescind regulations implemented in 2022 under the Biden Administration. The regulations that DHS is aiming to rescind primarily affect immigrants who already have some form of legal status and are applying for a visa or green card in order to live with family or obtain employment in the United States. DHS is currently able to consider whether an applicant for a visa or another immigration status change has received public cash assistance through Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). DHS is also allowed to consider whether the applicant has been in long-term institutional care, such as a nursing home or a mental health facility. But under Biden’s 2022 public charge regulations, DHS cannot reject applications based on a history of receiving public aid for food (such as SNAP and WIC), healthcare (such as Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program), housing, and energy assistance. The Trump Administration seeks change that. A DHS announcement from Nov. 19 states that “these provisions straitjacket DHS officers’ ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations that are consistent with Congress’s express national policy on welfare and immigration.” The announcement states that “consideration of [the use of all public benefits], in the totality of the circumstances, will allow officers to more accurately assess an alien’s likelihood at any time of becoming a public charge using their good judgment and discretion.” Read more… A USCIS explanation of how the government currently evaluates public benefits in certain immigration applications DHS’ explanation of how it hopes to change that policy The cities’ joint comment opposing the policy change In response to the proposal, a group of 16 municipalities submitted an opposing statement to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem on Dec. 19. New York City spearheaded the letter, which was coordinated by the Public Rights Project and co-signed by Austin, Texas; Baltimore, Md.; Boston, Mass.; Cambridge, Mass.; Chicago, Ill.; Columbus, Ohio; Evanston, Ill; San Fransisco, Calif.; Oakland, Calif; Portland, Ore.; Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minn.; San Jose, Calif.; San Mateo County, Calif.; in addition to New Haven. According to Mayor Justin Elicker, while the city has sued the Trump Administration over five other policies over the course of 2025, it likely does not have legal standing to directly challenge this policy in court. Instead, the joint statement “can potentially be used as a foundation for any court to consider should someone end up suing,” he said. In the joint comment, the municipalities argued that the policy would have negative health and safety outcomes in local communities, citing a potential rise in “homelessness and hunger” as well as a potential deterrence for obtaining vaccines and other forms of preventive medical care. In New Haven, according to the comment, the city’s health department “provided vaccinations, testing, and preventive care to 554 uninsured individuals, making up 44% of our clinic visits. Renewed fear surrounding benefit usage may reduce utilization of these services, increasing public health risks for the broadercommunity.” The comment expresses concern about the breadth of discretion that DHS would be afforded in determining what constitutes a “public benefit.” It states, for example, “there is nothing in the Proposed Rule that suggests that education at public schools a free, public benefit provided by state and local governments would not factor in to a decision on public charge inadmissibility.” In other words, Elicker said in an interview, DHS “could use as a justification to not allow someone legal status a very broad group of interpretations of what a public charge is. That could even include a child going to public schools.” He said that the city signed on because “we’re trying to do everything we can to protect our community.” The post City Fights Latest Fed Immigration Move appeared first on New Haven Independent. ...read more read less