Several months later, they learn that enrolling in the program providing prenatal care would not have affected their asylum application at all.<\/p>\n
New immigration rule<\/p>\n
This kind of ordeal is very common.<\/p>\n
About 1 in 7<\/a> immigrants across the country don\u2019t apply for government benefits even if they are eligible for them. Examples of these programs may include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program<\/a>, which helps low-income people buy groceries, and Medicaid<\/a>, a federal health insurance program for low-income people.<\/p>\n Many immigrants fear that enrolling in these programs, even if they qualify for them<\/a>, will make it harder for them to stay here legally.<\/p>\n Their fears are often unfounded because historically the government has penalized immigrants for using only certain benefits.<\/p>\n But that could change soon because the Department of Homeland Security<\/a> finalized a new rule on July 16, 2026. The rule reinterprets a provision in the Immigration Act of 1882<\/a> that allows immigration officers to deny the immigration applications of anyone they believe might need government assistance.<\/p>\n The Department of Homeland Security<\/a> also reinterpreted the public charge law<\/a> during the first Trump administration.<\/p>\n The second Trump administration\u2019s change eliminates any guardrails on immigration officers\u2019 ability to consider government benefits use by green card applicants and their relatives when determining whether someone could become what\u2019s called a \u201cpublic charge<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Once this policy change takes effect on Sept. 18, immigration officers will be free to consider an immigrant\u2019s use of any means-tested government benefit<\/a> when assessing applications for lawful permanent residence<\/a>, better known as \u201cgreen cards.\u201d<\/p>\n If any of an applicant\u2019s relatives have gotten benefits, immigration officers may apply that to their assessment of the applicant\u2019s own financial standing \u2013 something that had not been allowed before.<\/p>\n Immigrants wishing to remain in the U.S. need to clear many hurdles to obtain a green card, which indicates that they have been granted permanent residency status. What\u2019s slated to change<\/p>\n We study immigration policies. One of us (Makhlouf<\/a>) is a law professor who has counseled hundreds of immigrants who in real life, like Jessica and Pedro, want to know about their eligibility for government benefits. The other (Kreisberg<\/a>) is a sociologist who researches how immigration policies can restrict access to social services, education and jobs.<\/p>\n Although many people, such as refugees, will be exempt from this new rule, we expect that it will nonetheless lead more immigrants to believe that they have to choose between getting healthcare and having their immigration application approved \u2013 potentially harming their health. <\/p>\n The policy change will likely be contested in court as an overreach of authority by DHS; as what\u2019s called an \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d policy under the Administrative Procedure Act<\/a>; and as a violation of the equal protection clause<\/a> of the 14th Amendment \u2013 all of which were the basis of legal challenges to the 2019 public charge rule.<\/p>\n Clinton administration defines public charge<\/p>\n Despite changing interpretations, the public charge law has, in effect, always served one purpose: to prevent immigrants who could become dependent on the government from becoming permanent residents. However, the government largely enforced it inconsistently<\/a> after 1882. This was, in part, because the government never clearly defined public charge until the Clinton administration.<\/p>\n In 1996, when Congress restricted government benefits and strengthened immigration laws<\/a>, the public charge provision was amended to state that immigration officers should consider applicants\u2019 age, health, family status, income and assets, educational background and skills when determining whether they are or might become public charges.<\/p>\n In addition, immigration officers also needed to consider whether the applicant had a sponsor<\/a> who signed an affidavit of support, promising to financially support them if they were to prove unable to support themselves.<\/p>\n The changes created mass confusion. In response, the Clinton administration published guidance<\/a> in 1999 to clarify what a public charge is, defining it as an immigrant who is \u201cprimarily dependent on the Government for subsistence.\u201d<\/p>\n Under the new guidance, the use of only three government programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families<\/a>, Supplemental Security Income<\/a> and Medicaid, but only for long-term care<\/a>.<\/p>\n One goal of the guidance was to improve public health by encouraging eligible immigrants to use government benefits that provide healthcare, nutritious food and affordable housing.<\/p>\n First Trump administration<\/p>\n Two decades later, the first Trump administration changed the public charge policy. In 2019, it directed immigration officers to consider a broader range of benefits in the analysis, including enrollment in Medicaid<\/a> for any reason, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program<\/a> and housing assistance.<\/p>\n That policy was challenged in court<\/a>, leading to only intermittent implementation.<\/p>\n In 2021, the Biden administration stopped defending Trump\u2019s public charge policy in court and also rescinded it. In 2022, it issued a new regulation that codified the 1999 administrative guidance<\/a>.<\/p>\n Those changes essentially restored the more limited public charge policy that had been in place since 1999.<\/p>\n Biden restored prior approach<\/p>\n Green card denials based on public charge grounds have historically been low. They stood below 1% during the first Trump administration, according to the Migration Policy Institute<\/a>, a nonpartisan think tank. <\/p>\n And immigration officers have not historically considered whether an applicant\u2019s relatives have received government benefits, including when an applicant belongs to a \u201cmixed-status family<\/a>\u201d that includes both U.S. citizens and noncitizen immigrants. An estimated 6 million children who are U.S. citizens<\/a> live in such households.<\/p>\n The 2022 regulation specifically stated that the authorities would not consider whether an immigration applicant\u2019s relatives used government benefits. Trump\u2019s new policy, however, changes that.<\/p>\n For example, an immigration officer could see a U.S. citizen child\u2019s enrollment in Medicaid as an indication of their parent\u2019s financial insecurity and deny the parent\u2019s green card application on that basis.<\/p>\n Given that the first Trump administration\u2019s expansion of public charge policy led many eligible immigrants to avoid government benefits<\/a>, it is likely that this policy change will do the same \u2013 jeopardizing the health of many immigrants and their relatives<\/a>.<\/p>\n What\u2019s at stake now<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/file-20260727-68-qk3yai.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n Kurgenc\/iStock via Getty Images Plus<\/a><\/p>\n