Notice the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus), including Pelosi backed Biden VP wanna be, Karen Bass, oppose the public charge rule. CBC is supposed to look after African Americans yet wants new immigrants on welfare, which robs poor Americans. When Americans go abroad as students or workers or retirees they must show that they have money and won’t be a burden to the other countries. Why should the USA be different? Besides, it’s actually the law!
“UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
“On August 14, 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) published its rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (“Rule”), 84 Fed. Reg. 41292, to guide determinations of whether an alien applying to enter or remain in the United States is “likely at any time to become a public charge” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4). The Rule requires, inter alia, examination of an alien’s use of certain public benefits.
When deciding plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against DHS’s enforcement of the Rule, and weighing the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on the merits, the district court asked what Congress meant when it codified “public charge.”
The answer is in the term’s plain meaning. It is also in Congress’s statutory language. But the district court looked elsewhere. First, it looked to two non-events to define the term “public charge”: 1) Congress’s inaction on statutory language in 1996 and 2013; and 2) the INS’s inaction on rulemaking in 1999. Second, it looked to court cases from 1915 and 1929 that have long since been superseded by statute.
The plain meaning of “public charge” controls. Congress’s actual statutory language is authority superior to Congress’s debates over hypothetical statutory language. DHS’s actual rulemaking is authority superior to DHS’s proposed rulemaking. Past inaction toward defining “public charge,” ….
In sum, the text, structure, and statutory context of the INA all confirm that “public charge” should be given its ordinary meaning; that is, someone who produces a money charge upon the public for support and care. Of course, this does not mean the public charge provision must apply as broadly as its ordinary meaning permits. Instead, as the text of the INA makes clear, the term enjoys, in practice, a certain ambiguity, giving the executive discretion over the type, amount, and duration of public assistance that will render someone a “public charge.” But, at the same time, the term is unambiguous as to the statutory floor it sets for the executive; a floor that the judiciary is powerless to alter sua sponte.
In practical terms, what this means is that both the DHS Rule and the 1999 Field Guidance may be seen to rest on sound footing. While the two policies involve different levels of public benefits at which receipt would render someone a “public charge,” both turn on, at the end of the day, aliens producing money charges upon the public for support and care.” http://immigrationreformlawinstitute.org/Docs/Casa_de_Maryland_Opinion.pdf
[Notice the lengthy list, below, of those who want immigrants on the welfare dole. When Americans go abroad as students or workers or retirees they must show they have money and won’t be a burden to the other countries. Why should the USA be different? Those members of Congress listed in the case who oppose the rule/want immigrants on welfare are JUDY CHU, Chair of the CAPAC; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, CHC Whip; YVETTE D. CLARKE, Chair of the CBC Immigration Task Force; JOAQUIN CASTRO, Chair of the CHC; KAREN BASS, Chair of the CBC; PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Chair of the CAPAC Immigration Task Force; BARBARA LEE, Co-Chair of the CAPAC Healthcare Task Force. Notice the Congressional Black Caucus, which is supposed to look after African Americans, not immigrants, wants new immigrants on welfare.
“UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
CASA DE MARYLAND, INC.; ANGEL AGUILUZ; MONICA CAMACHO PEREZ,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; CHAD WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, II, in his official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,
Defendants – Appellants.
IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE,
Amicus Supporting Appellants.
104 BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS; AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; MARYLAND CHAPTER, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; VIRGINIA CHAPTER, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; MARYLAND STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS; AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS; INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INTEGRITY AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW; UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; LEGAL HISTORIANS; CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; MEMBERS OF CONGRESS; JUDY CHU, Chair of the CAPAC; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, CHC Whip; YVETTE D. CLARKE, Chair of the CBC Immigration Task Force; JOAQUIN CASTRO, Chair of the CHC; KAREN BASS, Chair of the CBC; PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Chair of the CAPAC Immigration Task Force; BARBARA LEE, Co-Chair of the CAPAC Healthcare Task Force; NONPROFIT ANTI-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ORGANIZATIONS; IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSORS; FISCAL POLICY INSTITUTE; PRESIDENTS’ ALLIANCE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND IMMIGRATION; PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER,
Amici Supporting Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:19-cv-02715-PWG)
Argued: May 8, 2020 Decided: August 5, 2020
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer joined. Judge King wrote a dissenting opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-2222 Doc: 113-1 Filed: 08/0”
“Victory! Fourth Circuit Green Lights Public Charge Rule
AMERICANS DON’T NEED ANY MORE LEFT COAST LEADERSHIP.
Karen Bass district in Cali is 41% Hispanic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_37th_congressional_district