Du
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Du as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 5,938
- Pages: 12
Jeff Du 1/25/19 IM 6-11AP Annotated Source List “Only Wealthy Immigrants Need Apply” How a Trump Rule’s Chilling Effect Will Harm the U.S. 10 Oct. 2018. Fiscal Policy Institute, fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/US-Impact-of Public-Charge.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov. 2018. This article examines the chilling effect that the current administration's policy changes on the issue of public charge have on non-permanent immigrants. These changes specifically affect those seeking to obtain permanent residence in the U.S through a green card. The researchers at the Fiscal Policy Institute estimated that around 24 million immigrants will be affected by this chilling effect, in essence being discouraged to enroll in various government assistance programs such as SNAP, TANP, Supplemental Security Income, etc. This is a drastic change in policy from before, in which immigration officers determined the eligibility of immigrants in a much more holistic manner, and because there are various negative weights that could lead to denial, such as having an income of under $15,000 for one person or $31,000 for a family of four. The researchers of the study eventually estimated the economic costs associated with these rules in the form of disenrollment of government assistance programs. Using disenrollment numbers of 15%, 25%, and 35%, the researchers concluded that the economic ripple effects as a result could range from $14.5 billion to almost $33.8 billion, while also losing anywhere from 99,000 jobs to almost 230,000 jobs. This research was very focused and provides tangible numbers to support the economic effects of the public charge rule. However, the methodology for determining these numbers was a bit vague, and the researchers don't take into account the reduced money spent by the government on these programs because of the reduced enrollment. Further research should be conducted to adequately gauge the true impact brought by these changes. Bergson-Shilcock, Amanda. "Newly proposed immigration 'public charge' rule would harm immigrant workers and US businesses." National Skills Coalition, 12 Oct. 2018, www.nationalskillscoalition.org/news/blog/newly-proposed-immigration-public-charge-rule-wo uld-harm-immigrant-workers-and-us-businesses. Accessed 17 Dec. 2018. This research talks a lot about the implications that the public charge law would have on U.S businesses and immigrant workers. First, it briefly summarizes the public charge changes and what will and will not be factored into a determination of a public charge. Then, it goes into detail about who exactly would be affected, specifically stating those, such as U.S military workers, refugees, and family members of immigrant applicants, that would not be affected by the change. Finally, the research article talks about the effects of the law on immigrant workers, namely the fact that it would create difficult choices for adult learners and job seekers as to decide whether or not to stay enrolled in these programs. The "chilling effect" resulting from the law would dis enroll many and affect the public health of many. In addition, organizations, institutions, and agencies would have to update "enrollment forms, software programs, and other
documentation", creating more confusion and disarray for immigrants as to whether or not they would be safe enrolling these programs. This source provided a lot of background information that was useful in understanding the public charge law, while also providing a lot of implications and effects of the law. The research was useful in understanding how exactly the confusion and panic created by the law would trickle down towards immigrant workers. Boteach, Melissa, et al. Trump’s Immigration Plan Imposes Radical New Income and Health Tests. Center for American Progress, 19 July 2018. Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2018/07/19/453174/trumps-immigration-planimposes-radical-new-income-health-tests/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018. This report analyzes the effect of a proposed policy being drafted by the Department of Homeland Security that would make passing the "public charge" test, a series of requirements in order to determine whether an individual is too dependent on the government for assistance, much more difficult for legal immigrants. This law was designed to prevent immigrants who were not already financially and socially "independent" from seeking green cards and permanent status in the U.S Previously, the legal definition for public charge had been an individual who is primarily dependent on either the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance, or Supplemental Security Income programs. However, under the new law, "people would generally fail if they had income and resources of less than 250 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance." However, under these rules, employed individuals who are eligible to receive aid from these programs will be affected as well. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has almost unlimited discretion on whether or not an individual passes the "public charge" test, as they possess the ability to weigh various factors. In fact, under these laws, an estimated 100 million Americans, around a third of the population, would fail the requirements, which is a conservative estimate as they did not include various government assistance programs that could be interpreted to fall under the test, and this number can grow as household income can vary by as much as 25% over the course of just one year. This research calculated their results by estimating the amount of households whose total net income, calculated through many factors, was below 250 percent of the federal poverty guideline (FPG), as well as the amount of households with individuals having a medical condition and receiving subsidized care. It accounted for many different government subsidy and assistance programs, but it did not include many others. Although it was unrealistic for the researchers to calculate all of the potential participants on these programs, the result was that the numbers they conclude were actually less than the total amount of individuals in the U.S affected. It provided a chart of potential categories for disqualification and had a long list of referenced sources. This source will be used in conjunction with other sources to demonstrate the extremely tight restrictions and guidelines President Trump's administration have proposed and implemented. Boucher, Jean Leon. Dependents and Dependency Immigrants and the Future of the US Economy. George Mason University, Feb. 2014. Institute for Immigration Research,
s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/25543/original/dependents_and_dependency.pdf?14994 60198. Accessed 29 Oct. 2018. This research paper analyzes the increasing need for immigrants in America as fertility rates and the working class population go down. In order to measure this, the researchers calculated the dependency ratio, which is basically the number of dependent people (generally accepted to be people under the age of 16 or over the age of 64) divided by the total working population, multiplied by a 100, for different categories, such as native Americans, as well as first, second, and third generation immigrants. They then produced a population pyramid that depicted the percentage of each age group that was native or an immigrant. Lastly, they used data from the American community survey to calculate the labor force dependency, which is those who are not in the workforce divided by those who are, multiplied by 100, for the aforementioned categories. The researchers first found that the dependency ratio for immigrants was at 21.8%, compared with 58.2% for native born individuals. This is reflected in labor statistics, as immigrants make up 13% of the population but 16.4% of the labor force. The researchers also found that the majority of immigrants tended to be clustered around the working age population, thus providing essential contributions to the workforce. Lastly, the researchers concluded the immigrant labor force dependency to be around 56.8%, almost half as low as native born individuals at 105.8%. These results indicate the necessity for immigrants in the current workforce market and the importance of not restricting more. This research was clear, concise, and provided a lot of graphics to help display their information. Although their research methods were a bit lacking, and they didn't provide a true methodology, their results were compelling in displaying the importance of immigrants in modern day America. The low labor and dependency rates for immigrants display the important work they provide compared to the rest of America. Camarota, Steven A., et al. There Are No Jobs Americans Won’t Do A detailed look at immigrants (legal and illegal) and natives across occupations. 26 Aug. 2018. Center for Immigration Studies, cis.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/camarota-no-jobs-americans-wont-do_1.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept. 2018. This research set out to discover the percentage of immigrants, illegal and legal, that make up various jobs and industries. In order to calculate these statistics, the researchers used data from a five-year sample of the American Community Survey, from 2012 to 2016, which includes 7.6 million individuals who are currently employed in the labor force. The study also estimated the amount of illegal immigrants currently employed by subtracting those from the 7.6 million who were most certainly not illegal immigrants (Ex: spouses of natural born citizens and people currently on government assistance programs) and then looking for key characteristics among the remaining that are frequent among the illegal population. The researchers found that among the 474 unique occupations defined by the Department of Commerce, only a few of them (6, including maids, taxi drivers, butchers, ground maintenance, construction workers, and janitors ) were majority-immigrant, with no occupation being majority-illegal immigrant based. Most of the jobs containing a high percentage of immigrants required little higher-level education, but some high-skilled jobs, such as physicians and software engineers, have high levels of immigrants. Large amount of native-born Americans still work in occupations with high
amount of immigrants, making the claim that hiring Americans to do those jobs is difficult less credible. This source was useful in providing key statistics as to the actual amounts of immigrants in various occupations. The website included a link to a spreadsheet containing data for all 474 aforementioned occupations, and derived logical conclusions from this data. However, the researchers made many assumptions when determining what constituted an illegal and non-illegal immigrant, and although the results were “weighed to replicate known characteristics of the illegal population”, the resulting approximation was not a complete representation of the total illegal immigrants in the U.S. This research was important in understanding the truth behind several claims that are currently active and pushed by Congress and President Trump's administration. Cosic, Damir, and Richard W. Johnson. How Might Restricting Immigration Affect Social Security’s Finances? 19 Dec. 2017. Urban Institute, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/95451/immigration_social_security_finances_0.pd f. This research article discussed the effect of a 2017 proposed legislation, the RAISE Act, on the overall health and stability of the social security system. Written by researchers of the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute, the study analyzed the effect of reducing the amount of green cards given per year on the amount of Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) payroll taxes that fund Social Security. The researchers calculated the estimated change of the amount of lawful and other-than-legal immigrants due to the act and used a model DYNASIM4 to estimate how OSADI revenue and payments would change when compared to the status quo. The model calculates the OSADI data by using estimates of lifespan earnings, duration of life, and disability status. They decides to solely focus on Social Security as previous studies have concluded the act has a negligible effect on GDP and average wages. The model concluded that the RAISE act would significantly reduce the number of employed workers, by 1.2% in 2030. 3.7% in 2050, and 5.9% in 2070. It would also reduce the revenue that Social Security earns and increase the value of OSADI's unfunded obligations. Overall, the researchers concluded that the stability of the Social Security Program would significantly decrease without providing any sort of substantial benefit to the economy in return. This source was well designed, and included many charts and graphs to illustrate their findings in comparison with the baseline. It referenced previous studies that also analyzed the RAISE Act, and used those findings to help direct their research. However, since the publishing of this research paper, there have been some changes to the RAISE act that may alter the researcher’s estimates. This source will be used in order to show the effect that current immigration policy under the Trump presidency has on the overall economy of the United States. Economic Impact of Proposed Rule Change: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. 31 Oct. 2018. New American Economy, research.newamericaneconomy.org/report/economic-impact-of-proposed-rule-change-inadmissib ility-on-public-charge-grounds/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.
This research brief specifically sought to examine the groups of immigrants that would be most affected by the new public charge rules. The research first presents a statistic that shows that 44% of Fortune 500 company CEO's were founded by an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant, thus showing that the children of immigrants, contrary to what the government believes, grow up to contribute significantly to the American economy. Then, using the latest census data, the researchers examined what groups would most be affected. They found that more than 91% of all Americans in the work force would be affected by this law, including "220,000 workers in the trade, transportation, and utilities industries" and "150,000 workers in the education and health services industries". Collectively, the researchers concluded that the total income of those affected was around 96.4 billion dollars. The effect of forcing immigrants to leave or not apply for permanent residence also affects industries, such as construction and mining industries, in which non-citizens make up a significant chunk of the working population. Overall, the researchers believe that this new law will undermine legal immigration and the strengthening of the American community and economy. This research was well-written and provided useful information in determining which industries would actually be affected as a result of this law. Although the methodology was a bit vague, and the content was a bit general, it was still useful in focusing on specific, focused areas in which further research should be conducted in. Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Public Benefits. 21 Aug. 2018. National Immigration Forum, immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/. This source talks about how immigrants are actually influencing the welfare and public benefits system. First, it gives a list of those who are allowed to use public benefits, noting that most undocumented immigrants (those who are not legally supposed to be in the U.S) are not allowed to actually enroll in any of these programs. However, legal immigrants are allowed to enroll in most programs as long as they have obtained lawful permanent residence. However, there is an exception, where as long as an immigrant has worked 40 quarters in the U.S, they would be able to enroll in these programs as well. However, this mainly applies to national public benefit programs, so in many states (26) there are state-wide programs that immigrants can enroll in. The article then moves on to usage rates of immigrants, noting that the usage rates of immigrants are at lower rates than citizens. In fact, immigrants on average contribute more to these programs that actual native citizens. This source was useful in getting an accurate understanding as to what programs immigrants were actually allowed to be enrolled in, and provided a lot of information on the types of programs that legal immigrants frequently participate in. The information presented in this article will be useful in explaining how the public charge law will affect participation rates in these benefits, one of the key reasons why the law was even proposed. Fishman, Stephen. "When Visa or Green Card Holders Must Pay Taxes." Nolo Law, www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/visa-green-card-holder-pay-taxes-29639.html. This article, written by Stephen Fishman, a tax lawyer, discusses whether or not aliens (temporary citizens in the United States with a visa) and green card holders have to pay taxes. Starting off on green card holders, Fishman writes that they automatically become tax residents,
no matter how many days they have stayed in the U.S. However, this law varies slightly for those with non-immigrant visas. Specifically, if one has resided in the U.S for 183 days for a period of 3 years, they would become a tax resident. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. If an individual has not spent 183 days in the U.S during the current year, they would not be treated as a tax resident. Additionally, those who do not possess a green card or possess a "closer" connection to their base country than the U.S (meaning the individual would most likely be paying taxes towards that country instead of the U.S), would not become a tax resident. If tax residents do not file their taxes, they will most likely be denied a green card in the near future, and may even end up being arrested and deported. This source was useful in providing fundamental information as to tax laws pertaining to immigrants who have not achieved permanent status in the U.S yet. It's important to understand that because of the many exemptions, many non-Immigrant visa holders may not have to pay taxes as compared to green card holders, meaning that potentially, as a result of the chilling effect of the public charge law, government tax revenue may decline. Gelatt, Julia, et al. State Immigration Enforcement Policies How They Impact Low-Income Households. May 2017. Urban Institute, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90091/state-immigration-enforcement-policies_1.p df. Accessed 3 Sept. 2018. This study analyzed the effect of tighter enforcement of various immigration laws on the subsequent material hardship (a measure of poverty) of immigrant households over the period of 2005-2010. The study analyzed data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) over those 5 years, as that time period could be an indication of America under President Trump and his various policies. This is because during that period, immigration enforcement increased drastically, with more states adopting 287(g) Agreements (training local enforcement officers to carry out specific parts of immigration law), Secure Communities (checking criminal's fingerprints in Department of Homeland Security databases), and E-Verify systems (allowing employers to verify the name and social security of potential hires, determining whether or not they are eligible to work in the U.S), in addition to various state-specific laws. States that adopted more immigration enforcement were given a higher enforcement index to distinguish the intensity of their involvement. The study concluded that among low-income households, ones that contained an unauthorized immigrant parent had much higher rates of material hardship that those containing a legal immigrant parent or a U.S citizen parent. In addition, the researchers found that for every point increase of state’s enforcement index, there were 4% more immigrant households unable to afford basic expenses, 3% more unable to pay rent/mortgage, and 6% more unable to pay utilities. This study was well-designed, and the researchers controlled for various factors that could affect state's adoption of enforcement policies. However, it focuses primarily on only three types of immigration enforcement programs, and does not address other potential legislation for enforcement, such as an increased ICE presence. It demonstrates the clear impact of increasing enforcement on the well-being of immigrant households, and suggests possible implications for the future if President Trump enacts similar legislation.
Gomez, Alan. "Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare." CNBC, 2 Sept. 2015, www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html. This article cites a 2015 Center for Immigration Studies report finding that over half of immigrants are on some form of welfare. In fact, according to the research, only 30% of native-led households were on a form of welfare. This number for both groups increased when the household contained children. The author's study, Steven Camarota, says that the findings should be used to demonstrate how America's system allows less-educated immigrants to settle and take advantage of the welfare system. However, the article also cited opponents who believe that the numbers found in the study are because of many other factors, such as the fact that immigrants start off poorer and generally have larger families, as well as the fact that second-generation immigrants are usually highly successful as well. This source provided important information on what exactly the welfare usage for immigrants were. However, the source of the research may be slightly biased, as the report's origin, the Center for Immigration Studies, has been known to advocate for lower-levels of immigration. However, the information presented in the study, as well as its statistics, was still accurate. The information will be used in order to demonstrate that the public charge law has some roots for basis and will reduce welfare costs when immigrants are disenrolled. Greene, Jonathon. "Immigration Law Basics." The Greene Law Firm, Columbia MD. Speech. These presentations were given by Mr. Jonathon Greene at the Greene Law Firm (on site) on various days across the weeks of 9/24/18 and 10/8/14. In these presentations, Mr. Greene discussed the basic fundamental concepts of immigration law, including the history of how immigration law evolved and how each branch of the government participates in the formation, implementation, and regulation of statues. He also highlighted specific departments, executive agencies, and government entities and explained their functions (EX: Embassies distribute visas outside the country, the Department of Health and Human Services works on refugee resettlement), creating an overall picture of how each subsection of the government work together to enforce and promote immigration. Besides talking about the role of the government, Mr. Greene also focused on the various pathways to obtaining legal status in the U.S, whether it be through obtaining a green card, a work or travel visa, or through special cases such as TPS, asylum, and VAWA status. In his words, there existed an "immigration ladder" with different hierarchies of legal status (citizen, green card holder, temporary status, visa overstays, EWIs), in which an individual has opportunities to move up (adjusting their status) to obtain legal citizenship. However, those at the bottom of the ladder are technically in the country illegally and thus have a much harder time adjusting their status. Mr. Greene's presentations were in depth and dutifully provided a concrete understanding into the information necessary for a complete picture of the U.S immigration system. Although some of the information was presented in a rather rushed manner and was not entirely explained, overall Mr. Greene covered a lot of pertinent laws, regulations, and concepts needed in order to begin practical work. His information will be used as background to demonstrate the effects of the public charge law on these various immigration sectors.
Huennekens, Preston. "2018 New Green Card Data Shows Slight Quarter-to-Quarter Decline." Center for Immigration Studies, 8 Aug. 2018, cis.org/Huennekens/2018-New-Green-Card-Data-Shows-Slight-QuartertoQuarter-Decline. This source provides a lot of information on the amount of green cards being administered each year, as well as trends. With multiple charts and diagrams, the research shows that around 1 million immigrants received green cards in 2017, thus becoming permanent residents of the U.S. However, as of Quarter 1 in 2018, this number has actually been going down, as evidenced by the graph "Individuals Obtaining LPRs per Quarter Q1 2017 to Q1 2018". In fact, the number of green cards given in the first quarter of 2018 was 8.6% less than the year before, displaying the differences in the Obama and Trump administration when it comes to immigration. In fact, this number, the authors write, might decrease even further due to the current administration's proposal of many laws, including the public charge law, designed to limit legal immigration and specifically the number of green cards given. This source provided many graphics to effectively display the changes in the green card trend as a result of this current administration. The information presented in this source was key to understanding the effect that these laws, including the public charge law, have on the amount of legal immigrants entering the U.S. Nowrasteh, Alex, and Robert Orr. Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant and Native Use Rates and Benefit Levels for Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Programs. 10 May 2018. Cato Institute, object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb6.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept. 2018. This research study analyzes the dependence on various government assistance programs by various groups across the United States, including immigrants, illegal and legal, as well as native born Americans. The researchers used data collected from the Census Bureau's 2017 Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which tracks use rates and values of welfare and other assistant programs, accounting for around 85% of total federal spending in that area. Examples of some programs tracked include Medicaid, SNAP, social security benefits, and Medicare. The researchers separated native and immigrant households from the data and analyzed average welfare costs as well as welfare usage rates. They first concluded that the average per capita costs of government assistance for an immigrant in the United States averaged around $3718 dollars, almost 39% than the $6081 average compared to native born individuals. Although immigrants receive more average benefits in some programs like SNAP and Medicaid, they also received far less in Social Security and Medicare. The second finding of the researchers was that usage rates for these programs vary widely depending on program. While immigrants were more likely to utilize SNAP and Medicaid programs, they were far less likely to utilize SSI, Medicare, and Social Security, with differences in usage rates of almost 10%. In general, immigrant children, whether illegal or legal, followed the same trend in usage of programs. Again in general, immigrants, adults and children, both consumed less money in government assistance than their native counterparts. This research was useful in understanding the true amount of dependence that immigrants, illegal and legal, have on the government in terms of assistance programs. This was especially crucial considering the new public charge laws, since immigrants on average were less of a public charge than native born Americans. This source, in conjunction with other sources
detailing the true amount of benefits that immigrants receive, will be used to display the rather limited burden that immigrants place on government subsidy programs. Orris, Allison, et al. "Public Charge Rule Would Have Significant, Negative Impact on Immigrants' Health Care and the Safety-Net Delivery System." Common Wealth Fund, 20 Nov. 2018, www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/public-charge-rule-negative-impact-immigrants-healthcare. This research article mainly talks about the health implications of the public charge law on immigrants enrolled in various health care programs. Because of the changes to the public charge law, immigrants may drop out of potential programs for fear that enrollment would be a negative factor in determining whether or not they are able to stay in the U.S and obtain a green card. The researchers estimated that almost 13.2 million people on these health care programs could be affected. As such, immigrants may start to skip health care coverage and health care providers. This would also negatively affect hospitals as well, because they would lose Medicare and Medicaid revenue. Safety-net providers may have to reallocate resources and stop serving essential areas of the community as well, in order to avoid losing money. An estimated 68 billion dollars in Medicaid and other spending could be affected by this rule, which would be a big hit for hospitals and could lead to less overage coverage as a result of it. This source provided a lot of research and statistics to support the negative effects that the public charge law would have on overall health care, and also listed many potential warrants for why that would be the case. The information presented in the article will be useful in demonstrating a great negative economic effect that results when the public charge law influences health care decisions. Owens, Jennifer. "Potential Changes to Public Charge Would Negatively Impact Georgia Families, Economy." Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, 1 Nov. 2018, gbpi.org/2018/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-rule-could-have-significant-impact-on-georgi a-families-economy/. This source specifically talks about the effects that the public charge law would have on Georgia as a whole. The researchers first estimated that almost around 1.2 Georgia families have a member who is a non-citizen. As a result, many of these families would be more fearful to enroll in various government assistance programs for fear of being eventually denied a green card or an adjustment of status. Using an economic study, the researchers also determined that economic costs for Georgia could range from around 139 million dollars if 15% of people dis enroll from these programs to almost 320 million if 35% of people disenroll. Hospitals and health care providers would feel the majority of these costs, which may increase overall health issues if these institutions are strapped for money. In addition, the researchers write how a potential loss of federal funds and jobs would have a significant effect on Georgia's economy and well-being, not just the health of immigrant families. This source was narrower than other articles and focused just on Georgia; however, it provided concrete economic numbers that could result when immigrants on these assistance programs feel compelled to disenroll. Although just for one particular region, the overall findings
of this article could be applied to the whole country, demonstrating the negative economic costs that arise if the public charge law is enacted. "Proposed Changes to 'Public Charge' Policies for Immigrants: Implications for Health Coverage." KFF, 24 Sept. 2018, www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for-immig rants-implications-for-health-coverage/. This source talks much about the health implications of the public charge law on immigrants. The new law, the researchers write, again would create a chilling effect that would disincentivize immigrants from enrolling in many health care programs, including "Medicaid, the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and several housing programs". However, currently Medicaid and other programs are very important in providing private coverage for lawfully present immigrants, so widespread disenrollment would greatly reduce the amount of immigrant employed. The researchers cite analysis that shows that "estimated 875,000 to 2 million citizen children with a noncitizen parent could drop Medicaid/CHIP coverage despite remaining eligible". Going without insurance and healthcare, the authors write, could lead to very negative health care implications, as well as augmenting systemic poverty and problems already affecting low-income immigrant families. The source provided a lot of detail exclusively relating to how the public charge law would affect health care and coverage, and provided many statistics to show how many immigrants would be affected. It also provided a chart that effectively displayed the differences between the previous laws and the proposed public charge law in terms of health care. The information will used to demonstrate the impact that the law has on the health of immigrants, leading to higher costs elsewhere as a result. "Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility." U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, 16 Oct. 2018, www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/proposed-change-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility. This source is the actual proposal written by the Department of Homeland Security outlining the proposed public charge law in October. In the source, many of the key schematics of the law were discussed, including what programs would be affected, how a ruling of public charge law would be determined, and the reasons as to why the proposed law was even created in the first place. They also provided their own economic estimates of what government researchers believed would result when the law was passed. Specifically, the government looked at the opportunity costs associated with the passage of law, where immigrants would have to spend more time applying for adjustments and changes of statuses, and determined that the additional costs would result in between "$45,313,422 to $129,596,845". In addition, DHS estimated the total increase in direct costs as a result of the passage would be between "$453,134,220 to $1,295,968,450" through the first 10 years, and the savings would be around “$386,532,679 to $1,105,487,375" over 10 years. This source states the complete origin of the public charge law, and has a lot of government based information, especially relating to the economic impacts. However, the DHS report doesn't actually explicitly state a method for their calculations, and it can be assumed that
their assumptions were not completely all-encompassing when they calculated those numbers. Nevertheless, this source provides extremely useful information about how the government thinks the public charge law would affect economic growth and costs. Rand, Doug. "How Will The Public Charge Rule Impact Employers And Immigrants?" Interview by Stuart Anderson. Forbes, 1 Oct. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/10/01/how-will-the-public-charge-rule-harm-employ ers-and-immigrants/#5dc8ced4995e. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018. This interview was conducted by Stuart Anderson, who is the executive director at the National Foundation for American Policy, a policy research organization. He is interviewing Doug Rand, who served as "assistant director for entrepreneurship at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy". In this interview, Anderson asks about the public charge rule changes and examines the impact. Rand begins first with a brief overview of the status quo before transitioning into what the new laws mean. Rand says in response to the question of potential impacts by saying "you can’t touch food stamps, federal housing and rental assistance, non-emergency Medicaid benefits, or Medicare Part D healthcare subsidies – even if you’re eligible for these programs – without taking on the risk that DHS denies your green card or visa application down the road", indicating the widespread repercussions that would emerge from these laws. He also gives a list of 15 factors that could be grounds for denial of green card that are now implemented by the law. Lastly, Rand goes on to discuss the various effects this would have on employers, as it would be much more difficult now to adjust status of a worker on a temporary visa to a green card. He estimates that the compliance cost to this rule could cost companies 1.3 billion dollars over the next decade. This source was widespread, talking about many of the potential effects of the public charge law. The interviewee, Mr. Doug Rand, was very knowledgeable on this topic, having dealt with this issue while serving in the White House, but he was slightly biased towards the actions conducted by this current administration. Overall, the source presents a lot of new avenues for further factors that must be considered in examining the full impact of the public charge law. Tuttle, Joshua. Examining the fiscal contribution of foreign-born and native-born households in the U.S. Sept. 2015. Institute for Immigration Research, s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/20046/original/IIR_Fiscal_Contribution_Report.pdf?14 41744016. Accessed 28 Sept. 2018. This source analyzed the fiscal contributions that non-native households bring to the United States as a whole. The research was conducted to determine the validity of claims made by both sides of the argument, those who believe that immigrants bring economic contribution to the United States through hard work and entrepreneurship, and those who believe that immigrants place an undue burden on the U.S society. The study compared 2012 state and federal data on tax income and social assistance spending between the two categories of households, and subtracted the spending numbers from tax income numbers to determine a net fiscal contribution. The researchers calculated the overall net fiscal contribution of foreign-born households to be at around 61 billion dollars, compared to 661 billion dollars for native-born
households. Although this discrepancy is high, there are many more native-born households in the U.S then foreign-born households, which accounts for the large difference. In addition, when analyzing the state data, the researchers were able to identify 9 states in which foreign-born households contributed a larger percent of their income compared to native-born households. Finally, the researchers stress the importance of the fact that tax contributions will increase the longer the foreign-born household stays in the U.S, indicating that these households are not a burden to the government and actually contribute an overall net revenue when accounting for tax revenue and social assistance spending. This research was useful in getting an overall measure of how immigrants economically contribute to the success of the U.S. The report quantifies the total net revenue immigrants generate for the government, and shows that immigrants do not have a negative burden on the U.S economy. However, this source used data from the 2013 Current Population Survey, which was slightly outdated and does not take into account recent legislative and regulative changes. This source will be used to corroborate similar studies that have found similar results showing the positive effect of immigrants on the economy.
documentation", creating more confusion and disarray for immigrants as to whether or not they would be safe enrolling these programs. This source provided a lot of background information that was useful in understanding the public charge law, while also providing a lot of implications and effects of the law. The research was useful in understanding how exactly the confusion and panic created by the law would trickle down towards immigrant workers. Boteach, Melissa, et al. Trump’s Immigration Plan Imposes Radical New Income and Health Tests. Center for American Progress, 19 July 2018. Center for American Progress, www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2018/07/19/453174/trumps-immigration-planimposes-radical-new-income-health-tests/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018. This report analyzes the effect of a proposed policy being drafted by the Department of Homeland Security that would make passing the "public charge" test, a series of requirements in order to determine whether an individual is too dependent on the government for assistance, much more difficult for legal immigrants. This law was designed to prevent immigrants who were not already financially and socially "independent" from seeking green cards and permanent status in the U.S Previously, the legal definition for public charge had been an individual who is primarily dependent on either the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance, or Supplemental Security Income programs. However, under the new law, "people would generally fail if they had income and resources of less than 250 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance." However, under these rules, employed individuals who are eligible to receive aid from these programs will be affected as well. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has almost unlimited discretion on whether or not an individual passes the "public charge" test, as they possess the ability to weigh various factors. In fact, under these laws, an estimated 100 million Americans, around a third of the population, would fail the requirements, which is a conservative estimate as they did not include various government assistance programs that could be interpreted to fall under the test, and this number can grow as household income can vary by as much as 25% over the course of just one year. This research calculated their results by estimating the amount of households whose total net income, calculated through many factors, was below 250 percent of the federal poverty guideline (FPG), as well as the amount of households with individuals having a medical condition and receiving subsidized care. It accounted for many different government subsidy and assistance programs, but it did not include many others. Although it was unrealistic for the researchers to calculate all of the potential participants on these programs, the result was that the numbers they conclude were actually less than the total amount of individuals in the U.S affected. It provided a chart of potential categories for disqualification and had a long list of referenced sources. This source will be used in conjunction with other sources to demonstrate the extremely tight restrictions and guidelines President Trump's administration have proposed and implemented. Boucher, Jean Leon. Dependents and Dependency Immigrants and the Future of the US Economy. George Mason University, Feb. 2014. Institute for Immigration Research,
s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/25543/original/dependents_and_dependency.pdf?14994 60198. Accessed 29 Oct. 2018. This research paper analyzes the increasing need for immigrants in America as fertility rates and the working class population go down. In order to measure this, the researchers calculated the dependency ratio, which is basically the number of dependent people (generally accepted to be people under the age of 16 or over the age of 64) divided by the total working population, multiplied by a 100, for different categories, such as native Americans, as well as first, second, and third generation immigrants. They then produced a population pyramid that depicted the percentage of each age group that was native or an immigrant. Lastly, they used data from the American community survey to calculate the labor force dependency, which is those who are not in the workforce divided by those who are, multiplied by 100, for the aforementioned categories. The researchers first found that the dependency ratio for immigrants was at 21.8%, compared with 58.2% for native born individuals. This is reflected in labor statistics, as immigrants make up 13% of the population but 16.4% of the labor force. The researchers also found that the majority of immigrants tended to be clustered around the working age population, thus providing essential contributions to the workforce. Lastly, the researchers concluded the immigrant labor force dependency to be around 56.8%, almost half as low as native born individuals at 105.8%. These results indicate the necessity for immigrants in the current workforce market and the importance of not restricting more. This research was clear, concise, and provided a lot of graphics to help display their information. Although their research methods were a bit lacking, and they didn't provide a true methodology, their results were compelling in displaying the importance of immigrants in modern day America. The low labor and dependency rates for immigrants display the important work they provide compared to the rest of America. Camarota, Steven A., et al. There Are No Jobs Americans Won’t Do A detailed look at immigrants (legal and illegal) and natives across occupations. 26 Aug. 2018. Center for Immigration Studies, cis.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/camarota-no-jobs-americans-wont-do_1.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept. 2018. This research set out to discover the percentage of immigrants, illegal and legal, that make up various jobs and industries. In order to calculate these statistics, the researchers used data from a five-year sample of the American Community Survey, from 2012 to 2016, which includes 7.6 million individuals who are currently employed in the labor force. The study also estimated the amount of illegal immigrants currently employed by subtracting those from the 7.6 million who were most certainly not illegal immigrants (Ex: spouses of natural born citizens and people currently on government assistance programs) and then looking for key characteristics among the remaining that are frequent among the illegal population. The researchers found that among the 474 unique occupations defined by the Department of Commerce, only a few of them (6, including maids, taxi drivers, butchers, ground maintenance, construction workers, and janitors ) were majority-immigrant, with no occupation being majority-illegal immigrant based. Most of the jobs containing a high percentage of immigrants required little higher-level education, but some high-skilled jobs, such as physicians and software engineers, have high levels of immigrants. Large amount of native-born Americans still work in occupations with high
amount of immigrants, making the claim that hiring Americans to do those jobs is difficult less credible. This source was useful in providing key statistics as to the actual amounts of immigrants in various occupations. The website included a link to a spreadsheet containing data for all 474 aforementioned occupations, and derived logical conclusions from this data. However, the researchers made many assumptions when determining what constituted an illegal and non-illegal immigrant, and although the results were “weighed to replicate known characteristics of the illegal population”, the resulting approximation was not a complete representation of the total illegal immigrants in the U.S. This research was important in understanding the truth behind several claims that are currently active and pushed by Congress and President Trump's administration. Cosic, Damir, and Richard W. Johnson. How Might Restricting Immigration Affect Social Security’s Finances? 19 Dec. 2017. Urban Institute, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/95451/immigration_social_security_finances_0.pd f. This research article discussed the effect of a 2017 proposed legislation, the RAISE Act, on the overall health and stability of the social security system. Written by researchers of the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute, the study analyzed the effect of reducing the amount of green cards given per year on the amount of Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) payroll taxes that fund Social Security. The researchers calculated the estimated change of the amount of lawful and other-than-legal immigrants due to the act and used a model DYNASIM4 to estimate how OSADI revenue and payments would change when compared to the status quo. The model calculates the OSADI data by using estimates of lifespan earnings, duration of life, and disability status. They decides to solely focus on Social Security as previous studies have concluded the act has a negligible effect on GDP and average wages. The model concluded that the RAISE act would significantly reduce the number of employed workers, by 1.2% in 2030. 3.7% in 2050, and 5.9% in 2070. It would also reduce the revenue that Social Security earns and increase the value of OSADI's unfunded obligations. Overall, the researchers concluded that the stability of the Social Security Program would significantly decrease without providing any sort of substantial benefit to the economy in return. This source was well designed, and included many charts and graphs to illustrate their findings in comparison with the baseline. It referenced previous studies that also analyzed the RAISE Act, and used those findings to help direct their research. However, since the publishing of this research paper, there have been some changes to the RAISE act that may alter the researcher’s estimates. This source will be used in order to show the effect that current immigration policy under the Trump presidency has on the overall economy of the United States. Economic Impact of Proposed Rule Change: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. 31 Oct. 2018. New American Economy, research.newamericaneconomy.org/report/economic-impact-of-proposed-rule-change-inadmissib ility-on-public-charge-grounds/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.
This research brief specifically sought to examine the groups of immigrants that would be most affected by the new public charge rules. The research first presents a statistic that shows that 44% of Fortune 500 company CEO's were founded by an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant, thus showing that the children of immigrants, contrary to what the government believes, grow up to contribute significantly to the American economy. Then, using the latest census data, the researchers examined what groups would most be affected. They found that more than 91% of all Americans in the work force would be affected by this law, including "220,000 workers in the trade, transportation, and utilities industries" and "150,000 workers in the education and health services industries". Collectively, the researchers concluded that the total income of those affected was around 96.4 billion dollars. The effect of forcing immigrants to leave or not apply for permanent residence also affects industries, such as construction and mining industries, in which non-citizens make up a significant chunk of the working population. Overall, the researchers believe that this new law will undermine legal immigration and the strengthening of the American community and economy. This research was well-written and provided useful information in determining which industries would actually be affected as a result of this law. Although the methodology was a bit vague, and the content was a bit general, it was still useful in focusing on specific, focused areas in which further research should be conducted in. Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Public Benefits. 21 Aug. 2018. National Immigration Forum, immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/. This source talks about how immigrants are actually influencing the welfare and public benefits system. First, it gives a list of those who are allowed to use public benefits, noting that most undocumented immigrants (those who are not legally supposed to be in the U.S) are not allowed to actually enroll in any of these programs. However, legal immigrants are allowed to enroll in most programs as long as they have obtained lawful permanent residence. However, there is an exception, where as long as an immigrant has worked 40 quarters in the U.S, they would be able to enroll in these programs as well. However, this mainly applies to national public benefit programs, so in many states (26) there are state-wide programs that immigrants can enroll in. The article then moves on to usage rates of immigrants, noting that the usage rates of immigrants are at lower rates than citizens. In fact, immigrants on average contribute more to these programs that actual native citizens. This source was useful in getting an accurate understanding as to what programs immigrants were actually allowed to be enrolled in, and provided a lot of information on the types of programs that legal immigrants frequently participate in. The information presented in this article will be useful in explaining how the public charge law will affect participation rates in these benefits, one of the key reasons why the law was even proposed. Fishman, Stephen. "When Visa or Green Card Holders Must Pay Taxes." Nolo Law, www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/visa-green-card-holder-pay-taxes-29639.html. This article, written by Stephen Fishman, a tax lawyer, discusses whether or not aliens (temporary citizens in the United States with a visa) and green card holders have to pay taxes. Starting off on green card holders, Fishman writes that they automatically become tax residents,
no matter how many days they have stayed in the U.S. However, this law varies slightly for those with non-immigrant visas. Specifically, if one has resided in the U.S for 183 days for a period of 3 years, they would become a tax resident. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. If an individual has not spent 183 days in the U.S during the current year, they would not be treated as a tax resident. Additionally, those who do not possess a green card or possess a "closer" connection to their base country than the U.S (meaning the individual would most likely be paying taxes towards that country instead of the U.S), would not become a tax resident. If tax residents do not file their taxes, they will most likely be denied a green card in the near future, and may even end up being arrested and deported. This source was useful in providing fundamental information as to tax laws pertaining to immigrants who have not achieved permanent status in the U.S yet. It's important to understand that because of the many exemptions, many non-Immigrant visa holders may not have to pay taxes as compared to green card holders, meaning that potentially, as a result of the chilling effect of the public charge law, government tax revenue may decline. Gelatt, Julia, et al. State Immigration Enforcement Policies How They Impact Low-Income Households. May 2017. Urban Institute, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90091/state-immigration-enforcement-policies_1.p df. Accessed 3 Sept. 2018. This study analyzed the effect of tighter enforcement of various immigration laws on the subsequent material hardship (a measure of poverty) of immigrant households over the period of 2005-2010. The study analyzed data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) over those 5 years, as that time period could be an indication of America under President Trump and his various policies. This is because during that period, immigration enforcement increased drastically, with more states adopting 287(g) Agreements (training local enforcement officers to carry out specific parts of immigration law), Secure Communities (checking criminal's fingerprints in Department of Homeland Security databases), and E-Verify systems (allowing employers to verify the name and social security of potential hires, determining whether or not they are eligible to work in the U.S), in addition to various state-specific laws. States that adopted more immigration enforcement were given a higher enforcement index to distinguish the intensity of their involvement. The study concluded that among low-income households, ones that contained an unauthorized immigrant parent had much higher rates of material hardship that those containing a legal immigrant parent or a U.S citizen parent. In addition, the researchers found that for every point increase of state’s enforcement index, there were 4% more immigrant households unable to afford basic expenses, 3% more unable to pay rent/mortgage, and 6% more unable to pay utilities. This study was well-designed, and the researchers controlled for various factors that could affect state's adoption of enforcement policies. However, it focuses primarily on only three types of immigration enforcement programs, and does not address other potential legislation for enforcement, such as an increased ICE presence. It demonstrates the clear impact of increasing enforcement on the well-being of immigrant households, and suggests possible implications for the future if President Trump enacts similar legislation.
Gomez, Alan. "Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare." CNBC, 2 Sept. 2015, www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html. This article cites a 2015 Center for Immigration Studies report finding that over half of immigrants are on some form of welfare. In fact, according to the research, only 30% of native-led households were on a form of welfare. This number for both groups increased when the household contained children. The author's study, Steven Camarota, says that the findings should be used to demonstrate how America's system allows less-educated immigrants to settle and take advantage of the welfare system. However, the article also cited opponents who believe that the numbers found in the study are because of many other factors, such as the fact that immigrants start off poorer and generally have larger families, as well as the fact that second-generation immigrants are usually highly successful as well. This source provided important information on what exactly the welfare usage for immigrants were. However, the source of the research may be slightly biased, as the report's origin, the Center for Immigration Studies, has been known to advocate for lower-levels of immigration. However, the information presented in the study, as well as its statistics, was still accurate. The information will be used in order to demonstrate that the public charge law has some roots for basis and will reduce welfare costs when immigrants are disenrolled. Greene, Jonathon. "Immigration Law Basics." The Greene Law Firm, Columbia MD. Speech. These presentations were given by Mr. Jonathon Greene at the Greene Law Firm (on site) on various days across the weeks of 9/24/18 and 10/8/14. In these presentations, Mr. Greene discussed the basic fundamental concepts of immigration law, including the history of how immigration law evolved and how each branch of the government participates in the formation, implementation, and regulation of statues. He also highlighted specific departments, executive agencies, and government entities and explained their functions (EX: Embassies distribute visas outside the country, the Department of Health and Human Services works on refugee resettlement), creating an overall picture of how each subsection of the government work together to enforce and promote immigration. Besides talking about the role of the government, Mr. Greene also focused on the various pathways to obtaining legal status in the U.S, whether it be through obtaining a green card, a work or travel visa, or through special cases such as TPS, asylum, and VAWA status. In his words, there existed an "immigration ladder" with different hierarchies of legal status (citizen, green card holder, temporary status, visa overstays, EWIs), in which an individual has opportunities to move up (adjusting their status) to obtain legal citizenship. However, those at the bottom of the ladder are technically in the country illegally and thus have a much harder time adjusting their status. Mr. Greene's presentations were in depth and dutifully provided a concrete understanding into the information necessary for a complete picture of the U.S immigration system. Although some of the information was presented in a rather rushed manner and was not entirely explained, overall Mr. Greene covered a lot of pertinent laws, regulations, and concepts needed in order to begin practical work. His information will be used as background to demonstrate the effects of the public charge law on these various immigration sectors.
Huennekens, Preston. "2018 New Green Card Data Shows Slight Quarter-to-Quarter Decline." Center for Immigration Studies, 8 Aug. 2018, cis.org/Huennekens/2018-New-Green-Card-Data-Shows-Slight-QuartertoQuarter-Decline. This source provides a lot of information on the amount of green cards being administered each year, as well as trends. With multiple charts and diagrams, the research shows that around 1 million immigrants received green cards in 2017, thus becoming permanent residents of the U.S. However, as of Quarter 1 in 2018, this number has actually been going down, as evidenced by the graph "Individuals Obtaining LPRs per Quarter Q1 2017 to Q1 2018". In fact, the number of green cards given in the first quarter of 2018 was 8.6% less than the year before, displaying the differences in the Obama and Trump administration when it comes to immigration. In fact, this number, the authors write, might decrease even further due to the current administration's proposal of many laws, including the public charge law, designed to limit legal immigration and specifically the number of green cards given. This source provided many graphics to effectively display the changes in the green card trend as a result of this current administration. The information presented in this source was key to understanding the effect that these laws, including the public charge law, have on the amount of legal immigrants entering the U.S. Nowrasteh, Alex, and Robert Orr. Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant and Native Use Rates and Benefit Levels for Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Programs. 10 May 2018. Cato Institute, object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb6.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept. 2018. This research study analyzes the dependence on various government assistance programs by various groups across the United States, including immigrants, illegal and legal, as well as native born Americans. The researchers used data collected from the Census Bureau's 2017 Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which tracks use rates and values of welfare and other assistant programs, accounting for around 85% of total federal spending in that area. Examples of some programs tracked include Medicaid, SNAP, social security benefits, and Medicare. The researchers separated native and immigrant households from the data and analyzed average welfare costs as well as welfare usage rates. They first concluded that the average per capita costs of government assistance for an immigrant in the United States averaged around $3718 dollars, almost 39% than the $6081 average compared to native born individuals. Although immigrants receive more average benefits in some programs like SNAP and Medicaid, they also received far less in Social Security and Medicare. The second finding of the researchers was that usage rates for these programs vary widely depending on program. While immigrants were more likely to utilize SNAP and Medicaid programs, they were far less likely to utilize SSI, Medicare, and Social Security, with differences in usage rates of almost 10%. In general, immigrant children, whether illegal or legal, followed the same trend in usage of programs. Again in general, immigrants, adults and children, both consumed less money in government assistance than their native counterparts. This research was useful in understanding the true amount of dependence that immigrants, illegal and legal, have on the government in terms of assistance programs. This was especially crucial considering the new public charge laws, since immigrants on average were less of a public charge than native born Americans. This source, in conjunction with other sources
detailing the true amount of benefits that immigrants receive, will be used to display the rather limited burden that immigrants place on government subsidy programs. Orris, Allison, et al. "Public Charge Rule Would Have Significant, Negative Impact on Immigrants' Health Care and the Safety-Net Delivery System." Common Wealth Fund, 20 Nov. 2018, www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/public-charge-rule-negative-impact-immigrants-healthcare. This research article mainly talks about the health implications of the public charge law on immigrants enrolled in various health care programs. Because of the changes to the public charge law, immigrants may drop out of potential programs for fear that enrollment would be a negative factor in determining whether or not they are able to stay in the U.S and obtain a green card. The researchers estimated that almost 13.2 million people on these health care programs could be affected. As such, immigrants may start to skip health care coverage and health care providers. This would also negatively affect hospitals as well, because they would lose Medicare and Medicaid revenue. Safety-net providers may have to reallocate resources and stop serving essential areas of the community as well, in order to avoid losing money. An estimated 68 billion dollars in Medicaid and other spending could be affected by this rule, which would be a big hit for hospitals and could lead to less overage coverage as a result of it. This source provided a lot of research and statistics to support the negative effects that the public charge law would have on overall health care, and also listed many potential warrants for why that would be the case. The information presented in the article will be useful in demonstrating a great negative economic effect that results when the public charge law influences health care decisions. Owens, Jennifer. "Potential Changes to Public Charge Would Negatively Impact Georgia Families, Economy." Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, 1 Nov. 2018, gbpi.org/2018/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-rule-could-have-significant-impact-on-georgi a-families-economy/. This source specifically talks about the effects that the public charge law would have on Georgia as a whole. The researchers first estimated that almost around 1.2 Georgia families have a member who is a non-citizen. As a result, many of these families would be more fearful to enroll in various government assistance programs for fear of being eventually denied a green card or an adjustment of status. Using an economic study, the researchers also determined that economic costs for Georgia could range from around 139 million dollars if 15% of people dis enroll from these programs to almost 320 million if 35% of people disenroll. Hospitals and health care providers would feel the majority of these costs, which may increase overall health issues if these institutions are strapped for money. In addition, the researchers write how a potential loss of federal funds and jobs would have a significant effect on Georgia's economy and well-being, not just the health of immigrant families. This source was narrower than other articles and focused just on Georgia; however, it provided concrete economic numbers that could result when immigrants on these assistance programs feel compelled to disenroll. Although just for one particular region, the overall findings
of this article could be applied to the whole country, demonstrating the negative economic costs that arise if the public charge law is enacted. "Proposed Changes to 'Public Charge' Policies for Immigrants: Implications for Health Coverage." KFF, 24 Sept. 2018, www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for-immig rants-implications-for-health-coverage/. This source talks much about the health implications of the public charge law on immigrants. The new law, the researchers write, again would create a chilling effect that would disincentivize immigrants from enrolling in many health care programs, including "Medicaid, the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and several housing programs". However, currently Medicaid and other programs are very important in providing private coverage for lawfully present immigrants, so widespread disenrollment would greatly reduce the amount of immigrant employed. The researchers cite analysis that shows that "estimated 875,000 to 2 million citizen children with a noncitizen parent could drop Medicaid/CHIP coverage despite remaining eligible". Going without insurance and healthcare, the authors write, could lead to very negative health care implications, as well as augmenting systemic poverty and problems already affecting low-income immigrant families. The source provided a lot of detail exclusively relating to how the public charge law would affect health care and coverage, and provided many statistics to show how many immigrants would be affected. It also provided a chart that effectively displayed the differences between the previous laws and the proposed public charge law in terms of health care. The information will used to demonstrate the impact that the law has on the health of immigrants, leading to higher costs elsewhere as a result. "Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility." U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services, 16 Oct. 2018, www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/proposed-change-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility. This source is the actual proposal written by the Department of Homeland Security outlining the proposed public charge law in October. In the source, many of the key schematics of the law were discussed, including what programs would be affected, how a ruling of public charge law would be determined, and the reasons as to why the proposed law was even created in the first place. They also provided their own economic estimates of what government researchers believed would result when the law was passed. Specifically, the government looked at the opportunity costs associated with the passage of law, where immigrants would have to spend more time applying for adjustments and changes of statuses, and determined that the additional costs would result in between "$45,313,422 to $129,596,845". In addition, DHS estimated the total increase in direct costs as a result of the passage would be between "$453,134,220 to $1,295,968,450" through the first 10 years, and the savings would be around “$386,532,679 to $1,105,487,375" over 10 years. This source states the complete origin of the public charge law, and has a lot of government based information, especially relating to the economic impacts. However, the DHS report doesn't actually explicitly state a method for their calculations, and it can be assumed that
their assumptions were not completely all-encompassing when they calculated those numbers. Nevertheless, this source provides extremely useful information about how the government thinks the public charge law would affect economic growth and costs. Rand, Doug. "How Will The Public Charge Rule Impact Employers And Immigrants?" Interview by Stuart Anderson. Forbes, 1 Oct. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/10/01/how-will-the-public-charge-rule-harm-employ ers-and-immigrants/#5dc8ced4995e. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018. This interview was conducted by Stuart Anderson, who is the executive director at the National Foundation for American Policy, a policy research organization. He is interviewing Doug Rand, who served as "assistant director for entrepreneurship at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy". In this interview, Anderson asks about the public charge rule changes and examines the impact. Rand begins first with a brief overview of the status quo before transitioning into what the new laws mean. Rand says in response to the question of potential impacts by saying "you can’t touch food stamps, federal housing and rental assistance, non-emergency Medicaid benefits, or Medicare Part D healthcare subsidies – even if you’re eligible for these programs – without taking on the risk that DHS denies your green card or visa application down the road", indicating the widespread repercussions that would emerge from these laws. He also gives a list of 15 factors that could be grounds for denial of green card that are now implemented by the law. Lastly, Rand goes on to discuss the various effects this would have on employers, as it would be much more difficult now to adjust status of a worker on a temporary visa to a green card. He estimates that the compliance cost to this rule could cost companies 1.3 billion dollars over the next decade. This source was widespread, talking about many of the potential effects of the public charge law. The interviewee, Mr. Doug Rand, was very knowledgeable on this topic, having dealt with this issue while serving in the White House, but he was slightly biased towards the actions conducted by this current administration. Overall, the source presents a lot of new avenues for further factors that must be considered in examining the full impact of the public charge law. Tuttle, Joshua. Examining the fiscal contribution of foreign-born and native-born households in the U.S. Sept. 2015. Institute for Immigration Research, s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/20046/original/IIR_Fiscal_Contribution_Report.pdf?14 41744016. Accessed 28 Sept. 2018. This source analyzed the fiscal contributions that non-native households bring to the United States as a whole. The research was conducted to determine the validity of claims made by both sides of the argument, those who believe that immigrants bring economic contribution to the United States through hard work and entrepreneurship, and those who believe that immigrants place an undue burden on the U.S society. The study compared 2012 state and federal data on tax income and social assistance spending between the two categories of households, and subtracted the spending numbers from tax income numbers to determine a net fiscal contribution. The researchers calculated the overall net fiscal contribution of foreign-born households to be at around 61 billion dollars, compared to 661 billion dollars for native-born
households. Although this discrepancy is high, there are many more native-born households in the U.S then foreign-born households, which accounts for the large difference. In addition, when analyzing the state data, the researchers were able to identify 9 states in which foreign-born households contributed a larger percent of their income compared to native-born households. Finally, the researchers stress the importance of the fact that tax contributions will increase the longer the foreign-born household stays in the U.S, indicating that these households are not a burden to the government and actually contribute an overall net revenue when accounting for tax revenue and social assistance spending. This research was useful in getting an overall measure of how immigrants economically contribute to the success of the U.S. The report quantifies the total net revenue immigrants generate for the government, and shows that immigrants do not have a negative burden on the U.S economy. However, this source used data from the 2013 Current Population Survey, which was slightly outdated and does not take into account recent legislative and regulative changes. This source will be used to corroborate similar studies that have found similar results showing the positive effect of immigrants on the economy.
Related Documents
Du
May 2020 36
Du
May 2020 37
Du
October 2019 54
Du
April 2020 44
Fin Du Sommet Du G8
October 2019 37