CITY OF BOSTON • MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE MAYOR MARTIN J. WALSH December 04, 2018 Submitted via www.regulations.gov U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Wasrungton, DC 20529-2140 Re:DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012, RIN 1615-AA22, Comments in Response to Proposed Rulemaking: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Dear Sir/Madam: The City ofBoston is writing to express serious concern with the October 10th Proposed Rule by the Department of Homeland Security, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. After conducting an extensive impact analysis, the City ofBoston has concluded that the proposed rule would severely harm the economic and social well-being ofBoston. The projected impact is complex and :fur-reacrung. We project the impact to include a potential loss of$500 million to Boston's economy annually in lost labor and economic activity, in addition to public health challenges that will affect thousands of households. 1 Currently, under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a person seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust their immigration status to legal permanent residency (i.e. green card) or a nonirnmigrant visa is considered "inadmissible" (i.e. barred from entry or denied adjustment ofstatus) if that person likely to become a "public charge." For the pmposes of determining 1 Impact ofProposed Federal Immigration Rule Changes on Boston: Public Charge Test/or lnadmissibi/it_v. October 15, 2018. Boston Planning and Development Agency. All data presented in these comments references a local irnpact analysis conducted by the City of Boston, the Boston Planning and Development Agency and the Boston Public Health Commission. The full text of the report can be found at: http ://\,\,'\VW.bostonp!ans .org/getattachmwt/e856c564-btDf-47d4-9a44-75b430903f82 i( BOSTON CITY HALL • ONE CITY HALL SQUARE • BOSTON • MASSACHUSETTS • 0220 I 617-635-4500 • www.boston.gov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER •�48N Comments of City of Boston admissibility, a "public charge" refers to an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. The public charge grounds of inadmissibility is currently determined by a "totality of the circumstances" calculus. This means that the USCIS or Consular officer adjudicating the merits of an application for adjustment of status or admission to the United States must consider both positive and negative factors when determining the likelihood that an immigrant becomes a public charge. TI1ese factors include, but are not limited to, family status, age, financial status, and education/skills. Different factors and attnbutes are weighted negatively or positively in this calculus, with certain factors representing heavily weighted strikes against an applicant and others representing factors that, in most cases, will override unfavorable elements of an application. Currently, the receipt ofpublic cash assistance for income maintenance (i.e. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF) or institutionalization for long-term care at the government's expense are the only public benefits that are considered as negative factors in the public charge calculus. Currently, a properly-filed, non-fraudulent sponsor's affidavit of support is often sufficient to overcome negative public charge considerations. As a result, it is a forward-loolcing test not only focused on the past. The new rules proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would allow officers to consider an individual's use of a wider anay of means-tested benefits programs in this determination, including subsidized medical insurance (e.g. Medicaid), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and housing assistance (primarily Section 8). Additionally, the proposed rule alters the weighting system used in the test, making the sustained use ofthese public benefits and other factors heavily weighted negative strikes against an applicant. As a result, use of these programs, which often provide access to both vital nutritional and other health-related resources, may jeopardize the ability of immigrants to adjust their immigration status in the future. For those individuals who continue use ofpublic benefits programs, being denied an adjustment of status on these grounds could culminate in. a loss of immigration status completely. These individuals would, therefore, become removable. We estimate that approximately 19,400 foreign-born, non-citizen residents of Boston are both eligible for an adjustment of status where the public charge test is applied and have one or more of the heavily weighted negative factors identified in the proposed changes, including receipt of means-tested public benefits. Assuming that these individuals are unable to adjust their immigration status as result of their continued use of public benefits, subsequently become removable, and are consequently deported or choose to leave the country, the City of Boston would face a severe economic burden. Boston employers could lose approximately 12,000 workers if affected immigrants lose employment authorization, are detained and deported, including workers who are Boston residents and those who commute into jobs in the city. These workers support the jobs ofan additional 5,600 workers. Boston would lose a significant amount of high skill and academic capital Nearly 4,000 affected Boston residents are college or university students, and another 1,800 are college-educated workers. The Comments of City of Boston Boston economy would also lose the purchasing power of the 11 ,800 affected Boston residents who are not currently employed or who work outside of Boston. TI1e affected immigrants who live in Boston or commute into Boston contribute $500 million annually to the income of Boston residents through direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts. The proposed rule would also pose a grave public health challenge to the City of Boston. Public benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid are important safeguards to public health. Just over 13,000 adults and 1,600 children currently receiving Medicaid may disenroll for fear ofjeopardizing their irrnnigration status. Nearly 8,000 adults and 1,000 children who currently receive food stamps may be reluctant to accept these public benefits for the same reason. We expect that disenrolhnent from public insurance will result in increased uncompensated care costs to local hospitals and increased use of emergency care. The City of Boston would lose between $14 million and $57 million annually as a result, depending on the extent of disenrolhnent. The public healili impact extends beyond ilie calculable monetary costs. The proposed rule forces families to decide between health and maintaining status, a situation where children always lose out. Decreased family participation in medical and nutrition programs will result in worse maternal and childhood health outcomes. The ramifications of such a shock may be felt long into the future. Poor early childhood health is linked to poor long-te1m educational and social outcomes and thus the proposed rule will likely have a lasting inipact on Boston's in1migrant children, of which thousands are citizens, and will likely create greater long-term stress on the economy. Furthermore, the discontinuation of treatment due to disenrollment from public insurance may result in the spread of corrnuunicable diseases. 111is risk is especially high among those individuals with health conditions that require long-term medically assisted management such as HIV/AIDS. Additionally, ilie proposed rule will likely separate Boston families. Of the 19,400 Boston residents who would possibly face deportation, nearly 2,000 are minor children, almost 6,000 are manied, and about 6,000 are caring for minor children. Not only will separation cause immeasurable suffering, but it will place a greater burden on city resources. Immigrant inclusion is a foremost priority ofilie Boston Mayor's Office. The proposed rule would inipede efforts to integrate irrnnigrants into the economic, civic, sociaL and cultural life of our city. The proposed change would damage longstanding efforts to ensure irrnnigrants feel welcome to access necessary services, as a result, further isolating an already highly vulnerable population. Moreove1~ many irrnnigrants and immigrant families who are otherwise eligible may decide to forgo services and public benefits out offear ofreal or perceived consequences. Boston is already seeing the first sigt1S ofthis chilling effect. Comments of City of Boston To be clear, the City of Boston takes issue with the premise ofa "public charge test" itself; which is founded in part on the erroneous assertion that immigrants are an economic drain on the United States. On the contrary, this proposed rule would likely lead to the exclusion or expulsion of immigrants who would contnbute to the U.S. economy and thus not only represents bad public policy, but also irresponsible fiscal decision-making. Further, the notion that a non-citizen's entry to or ability to remain in the country should rest on their use of public programs and services for which they are eligible is in direct contravention of fundamental American principles. Equality, hberty, and freedom to thrive are maligned by the existence of a public charge test at all, to say nothing of this proposal to make that test more restrictive and repressive. For the reasons discussed above, including our assertion that this proposal flouts our democratic values, we strongly oppose the proposed rule change on public charge grounds for inadmissibility. The Department of Homeland Security should not alter this rule. Sincerely, Martin J. Walsh Mayor City of Boston