McKenna: Going behind the public charge immigration controversy

The latest immigration controversy stemming from the White House centers on the term “public charge.” It has prompted praise and outrage, and a few lawsuits.

In fact, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is leading a multi-state lawsuit against the Trump administration’s proposed change to the public charge provision.

Former Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna tells KIRO Radio’s Dave Ross that the public charge issue goes back decades and really centers on its definition.

“The Immigration and Nationality Act includes a provision that bars immigrants from gaining admission to the country or obtaining green cards if they are ‘likely to at any time to become a public charge,’” McKenna siad.

Ross: Statue of Liberty poem gives me an immigration idea

Here’s the problem with that provision – it’s not defined. What does a “public charge” mean? It could be age, or health, or financial status, which could cause a person to seek help from the government and therefore become a public charge.

“Back in ’99, the Clinton administration … issued guidance defining a public charge as an individual likely to become ‘primarily dependent on the government for subsistence as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense,’” McKenna said.

Benefits such as food stamps or Medicaid were not included in this Clinton-era definition. They are “non-cash” benefits as McKenna explains.

“What the Trump administration wants to do now, in this new rule, is to incorporate non-cash benefits into the definition of public charge for determining which immigrants should be prevented from coming to live here, living primarily on public assistance,” he said.

It’s important to note that immigrants cannot apply for public assistance when they arrive.

“I think the rule is five years that you have to be here before you are eligible to apply … I think progressives and conservatives ought to be able to agree that no matter how they feel about a particular rule, if they don’t like a rule from the executive branch, the remedy is in the legislative branch.”

The meaningful fallout of the public charge controversy goes beyond the political and public debates, however. McKenna argues that the issue can broadly paint a bad picture of immigrants.

“I think one of the unfortunate aspects of this public charge rule that they are trying to revise is that it creates this impression that immigrants are more likely to depend on government benefits — they are actually not,” McKenna notes. “They are actually more likely than native-born Americans to work. They are no more likely than native-born Americans to use public benefits. In fact, as The Wall Street Journal points out, the labor participation rate of Hispanic foreign-born high school graduates is about even with white native-born bachelor degree recipients – at about 72-73 percent. Hispanic foreign-born high school graduates are actually significantly more likely to be working than native-born whites with only a high school education.”

“Turns out, as has been historically true in this country, it was true for your ancestors and mine, too, who came to this country from Europe, these immigrants are hard working on average, and are not a drain in net terms, but are a boon to our economy and our society.”

Listen to Dave Ross weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. on KIRO Radio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.

Follow @https://twitter.com/DyerOxley