Democrats sue DHS to keep giving welfare funds to foreign nationals

Updated guidance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has triggered a lawsuit from Democrat-led states, arguing that American taxpayers should fund welfare assistance for illegal aliens and other foreign nationals.

DHS confirmed in August that it had updated the agency’s “Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination” guidance, significantly expanding the list of welfare benefits that would make a foreign national already living in the U.S. ineligible for legal permanent residence, commonly called a “green card,” when applying for adjustment of status.

The new guidance is not applicable to foreign nationals applying for admission to the U.S. at the border or ports of entry or those applying for immigrant visas through the U.S. State Department.

It is up to DHS immigration officers to determine whether or not foreign nationals are likely to become a “public charge,” relying on taxpayer-funded welfare programs, when considering an applicant’s legal permanent residence.

In 2022, under then-President Joe Biden, DHS adjusted its public charge admissibility determination guidance to instruct DHS officers to only consider a foreign national’s “receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance and long-term institutionalization at the government’s expense.” Starting Sept. 18, DHS officers will weigh “any and all benefits” that a foreign national receives, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), housing assistance, financial aid for higher education, and any other taxpayer-funded benefit.

In response to the DHS guidance update, New York led 21 states and the District of Columbia in filing a lawsuit to block the changes from going into effect. The lawsuit argues that the states and D.C. stand to lose billions in federal funding if foreign nationals currently enrolled in welfare programs disenroll in order to maintain green card eligibility.

New York’s Democratic Attorney General Letitia James bemoaned the rule change in a Sept. 14 press conference.

“That means immigrant New Yorkers may be forced to ask themselves impossible questions,” she said. “‘Will getting health insurance hurt my chances of getting a green card? Will accepting food assistance when I fall on hard times be held against me?’”

The state-led lawsuit reportedly relies on the Administrative Procedure Act to characterize the rule change as “arbitrary and capricious,” further arguing that DHS exceeded its statutory authority in empowering immigration officers to determine what constitutes a public charge or likely public charge.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a Ugandan-born Democrat, also filed a lawsuit on behalf of the city, joined by a coalition of Democrat-led cities.

A DHS spokesman told Zeale News that the lawsuits are a result of Democrat-run jurisdictions’ fear of losing federal funding that is frequently abused and misused.

“Let’s get this straight, sanctuary states are terrified they will lose federal funds because hundreds of thousands of illegals and noncitizens might remove themselves from American welfare programs. We’re shaking in our boots over this supposedly terrible outcome,” he said.

“This is the ideological contortion required by left-wing leaders to justify their defrauding of the American taxpayer at the hands of illegal criminals,” the DHS spokesman continued. “DHS has heard for months from the trusted journalists at CNN and others that illegal aliens weren’t using these very same welfare programs. So, which is it?”

In a statement shared with Zeale News, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) praised the updated guidance as a common-sense measure to protect taxpayer dollars.

“CIS has long argued that USCIS should consider means-tested public benefits received by an applicant’s dependent children because the applicant is responsible for meeting their dependent children’s basic needs,” the organization said. “When the government provides benefits to satisfy an alien’s dependents’ needs, that assistance bears directly on whether the alien has sufficient resources to support their dependents without reliance on government assistance and should therefore be relevant to the public charge determination.”