LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined a coalition of 17 attorneys general in support of the Biden administration’s defense of its revised “public charge” regulations, which determine who can obtain or keep legal immigration status.

In September of 2022, the Biden administration issued a final rule about who is considered to be a “public charge” in immigration proceedings. It went into effect on December 23, 2023. It’s part of an application process for people seeking visa or lawful permanent resident status at consulates abroad or within the U.S. and is used to determine eligibility for government benefit programs.

MORE NEWS: School Employees Paying For Health Coverage, But It Isn’t As Much As The Rest Of Us

Longstanding guidance by the federal government has defined a “public charge” as a person who is primarily and permanently dependent on either public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutional long-term care at the government’s expense. Under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, a noncitizen who is likely to become a public charge is generally inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a lawful permanent resident.

In a press release from AG Nesssel’s office, they say, “In 2019, the Trump administration issued the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule, which dramatically expanded the definition of a public charge to include even short-term use of supplemental federal government programs like Medicaid or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) – even as little as $17 a month. Following court decisions across the country blocking the Trump-era rule, it was formally vacated in March 2021.”

The statement went on to say that in December 2022, a new Public Charge Final Rule issued by the Biden administration came into effect which Nessel’s office says “sought to undo the sweeping harms of the Trump-era rule by largely restoring the long-standing public charge policy.” They go on to say that the rule is now facing a legal challenge in the Southern District of Texas after the state of Texas filed a lawsuit (Texas v. Mayorkas) to block its enforcement and “resurrect the Trump administration’s harmful 2019 rule.”

The Trump administration changed the rules so that immigrants were not only assessed on their current reliance on U.S. government assistance, they were also looked at to see if the applicant was likely to rely on government benefits in the future and included things like age and medical conditions and their ability to work. They were also required to secure private health insurance before coming into the country. The size of their family was also considered as well as their ability to speak English and their credit history. Applicants had stricter criteria including being ineligible if taking certain benefits for more than 12 months such as SNAP and Section 8 housing assistance. Household income for the applicant had to be at least 125 to 250% of the federal poverty guidelines.

In a press release from AG Nessel’s office supporting Biden’s new rule change, the AG office says, “The revised regulations reject harmful Trump-era changes, which caused hardworking immigrants and their families to avoid or refuse critical health, nutrition, and housing programs for which they qualified. In the amicus brief, the coalition emphasized the importance of the Biden administration’s new rule, which supports states’ efforts to protect the health and well-being of immigrant families and all the states’ residents.”

The National Immigration Law Center has called Trump’s rule change a “a racially-motivated wealth test on immigrant families and individuals pursuing a healthy, stable future in the U.S.” and something to “spread fear and chaos in immigrant communities – to make people afraid to benefit from programs they are legally entitled to access, programs intended to make them healthier and stronger.”

MORE NEWS: Wayne State President Resigns Amid Fallout From Medical School Uproar

Public charge was created by the federal government over 100 years ago to determine whether immigrants seeking to gain immigration status are likely to become dependent on the government. According to “Protecting Immigrant Families,” if an immigration or consulate official determines that someone is likely to become a “public charge,” the government can deny that person’s application for admission to the United States or an application for lawful permanent resident status (LPR status, also called a “green card”).

The “public charge inadmissibility test” affects people applying for admission to the country or for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. It does not apply to humanitarian immigrants including refugees; asylees; survivors of domestic violence, trafficking and other serious crimes; special immigrant juveniles; and certain individuals paroled into the U.S.

In Biden’s final rule, USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) clarified that long-term institutionalization does not include home and community-based services or institutionalization for short periods of rehabilitation. Food and nutrition programs, including SNAP and WIC, housing programs, including Section 8, and utility assistance including the Emergency Broadband Benefits (EBB) are not considered. Medicaid and state or locally funded health programs are not considered unless they are used to cover long-term institutionalization. The final rule also makes it clear that benefits received by a family or household member will not be considered in a public charge determination. This would include, for example, cash assistance received by a U.S. citizen child, if the parent is seeking a green card through a family-based petition.

Nessel says about her support for Biden’s rule change and the need for immigrants to keep their benefits, “Public nutritional, medical, and housing services support community and public health beyond the benefit to the individual recipients. Eligible people who qualify for these programs should be able to rightfully participate in them without being barred permanent resident status. I wholeheartedly stand with my colleagues in supporting the revised public charge rule, which reverses the harmful Trump-era regulations.”

In the amicus brief, the coalition of attorneys general support the Biden administration’s defense of its rule, arguing that the 2022 rule is consistent with applicable law, and will help encourage their states’ residents, including immigrants and their families, to enroll in and access health and nutrition programs for which they are eligible.

The amicus brief was filed by the attorneys general of California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington.