Biden Justice Department stops defending Trump rule that limits benefits for immigrants
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- The Department of Justice told the Supreme Court that it will no longer defend a Trump administration rule that made it more difficult for immigrants to obtain permanent residency if they were likely to need benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or federal housing aid.
- The move is the latest in a series of decisions by the DOJ to drop positions taken by the department during President Donald Trump's administration.
© Provided by CNBC Migrants approach the US border on Gateway International Bridge in Brownsville, Texas on March 2, 2021.
The Department of Justice on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it will no longer defend a Trump administration rule that put limits on immigrants seeking permanent U.S. residency.
Trump's White House made the so-called public charge rule tougher on immigrants if they were likely to need noncash benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or federal housing aid.
The move is the latest in a series of decisions by the Justice Department after President Joe Biden took office in January to drop positions taken by the department during President Donald Trump's administration.
It comes a month after the Supreme Court allowed the modification of the public charge rule to take effect while a decision on an injunction against the rule was pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It was longstanding federal policy, before Trump took office, to consider whether an immigrant was likely to need cash assistance or long-term hospitalization in determining whether to grant that person permanent residency status.
The Trump administration moved to expand that definition to include noncash benefits, such as Medicaid, which provides health coverage to primarily low-income people.
A number of federal district courts around the U.S. had blocked the rule from taking effect.
But the Trump administration successfully overturned those injunctions on appeal to circuit courts of appeal and ultimately at the Supreme Court in late January.
Tags
Who is online
401 visitors
Oh. joy!
Look at what American taxpayers will have to pay now.
The article is talking immigrants, not illegals.
But if you have guests in your house, and they ask for a glass of water, are you going to tell them to fuck off, that they're not worth the price of the water?
Apparently you are.
Also, if you actually read your seeded article, you would see that nothing is changing because Trump's policy has been blocked by a number of federal courts.
So tax payers are not paying any more now than they were a year ago.
Gee, so far, not a soul has mentioned legal or illegal except for you. Interesting that you would bring it up.
I treat my invited guests quite well. Doesn't mean I support them financially.
From the seeded article itself (and apparently, NOT something YOU bothered yourself with reading----I am sure in your haste to insinuate I didn't read it, it just slipped your mind):
I bolded the part you obviously chose not to read.
All that comment does is prove you didn't understand the article or what the Court ruled, or what Biden did.
So you are saying that you would be unwilling to pay for the cost of a glass of water for them. How about 1 glass and let them all share it???
Though you seem to have missed it, government is continuing to defend it in court. So it is not settled.
Yup, Biden has chosen to treat our guests, as guests.
Trump's White House made the so-called public charge rule tougher on immigrants if they were likely to need noncash benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or federal housing aid.
Just what we need during a pandemic in the midst of a recession.
WTF are you reading??????
Quote me saying it or stop the crap.
If I invite someone over for dinner, that doesn't mean I am obligated to provide all their meals from that moment on.
I read the article, understood the article, and posted the article.
All you did was accuse me of of not reading it while showing YOU didn't bother reading it, as I proved.
What part of
"But the Trump administration successfully overturned those injunctions on appeal to circuit courts of appeal and ultimately at the Supreme Court in late January."
is hard to grasp? Do you know what happens when SCOTUS rules?
Got any clue what the SCOTUS decision means?
Prove that.
I don't think you can.
What do you claim the government is defending here?
And why?