Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:52:22.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Reason, Public Comments, and Public Charge: A Case Study in Moral & Practical Reasoning in Federal Rulemaking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2022

Rachel Fabi  and
Lauren Zahn
Rachel Fabi
Affiliation:
SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, SYRACUSE, NY, USA
Lauren Zahn
Affiliation:
SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, SYRACUSE, NY, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The “public charge” rule is a long-standing immigration policy that seeks to determine the likelihood that a prospective immigrant will become dependent on the government for subsistence. When the Trump administration sought to expand the criteria that would count against an applicant for permanent residency to include public benefits historically excluded from the calculation, thousands of commenters wrote to oppose or support the proposed changes. This paper explores the moral and practical reasons commenters provided for their position on the public charge rule and considers the value of the public comment process for immigration, health, and social policy.

Keywords

Public ChargeDeservingnessSelf-SufficiencyCitizenshipRulemaking
Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 50 , Issue 2: Commercial Speech and Commercial Determinants of Health , Summer 2022 , pp. 322 - 335
Copyright
© 2022 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41292, (Aug 14, 2019).Google Scholar
Immigration Act of 1882, Pub. L. No. 47-376, 22 Stat. 214 (1882).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supra note 1.Google Scholar
Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 64 Fed. Reg.28689, (Mar 26, 1999).Google Scholar
See “Summary of Costs and Benefits,” supra note 1, at 41300.Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Id Google Scholar
Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission., 627 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
C.R. Farina, M. Newhart, and J. Heidt, “Rulemaking vs. Democracy: Judging and Nudging Public Participation That Counts,” The Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law 2, no. 1 (2012): 123-172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
C.R.Farina, D. Epstein, J. Heidt, and M. Newhart,“Knowledge in the People: Rethinking ‘Value’ in Public Rulemaking Participation,” Wake Forest Law Review 47, no. 5 (2012): 101-155.Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
StataCorp, State/SE: Stata Statistical Software, V. 15, StataCorp, Mac OS, 2017.Google Scholar
K. Charmaz, “Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis,” in Qualitative Research Methods For Health Professionals, ed. P.A. Field and J.M. Morse (California: Sage, 1995).Google Scholar
M.Q. Patton, “Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative Analysis,” Health Services Research 34, no. 5 (1999): 1189-1208.Google Scholar
Dupli Checker, “Plagiarism Checker,” available at <https://www.duplichecker.com> (last visited June 21, 2022).+(last+visited+June+21,+2022).>Google Scholar
QSR International, NVivo, V. 12, QSR International, Mac OS,2018.Google Scholar
J.W. Nickel, “Should Undocumented Aliens Be Entitled to Health Care?” Hastings Center Report 16, no. 6 (1986): 19-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supra note 1, at 41295.Google Scholar
Of course, the delineation between the two is not always black-and-white, as many moral reasons may be grounded in practical interests.Google Scholar
See supra note 1, Table 51, at 41176Google Scholar
U.L. McFarling, “‘We’ll Be Deported’: Immigrants Fear Seeking Covid-19 Tests or Care,” STAT News, April 15, 2020, available at <https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/15/fearing-deportation-many-immigrants-at-higher-risk-of-covid-19-are-afraid-to-seek-testing-or-care> (last visited June 8, 2022).+(last+visited+June+8,+2022).>Google Scholar
Supra note 1 at 41297.Google Scholar
Id. at 41292.Google Scholar
Id. at 41314.Google Scholar
Id. at 41306.Google Scholar
S. Ingber and R. Martin, “Immigration Chief: ‘Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor.’ Who Can Stand On Their Own 2 Feet,” NPR, April 13, 2020, available at <https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750726795/immigration-chief-give-me-your-tired-your-poor-who-can-stand-on-their-own-2-feet> (last visited March 22, 2022).+(last+visited+March+22,+2022).>Google Scholar
Supra note 9.Google Scholar
City & Cty. of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 408 F. Supp. 3d 1057, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2019), appeal dismissed sub nom. La Clinica de La Raza, Inc. v. Trump, No. 19-17483, 2020 WL 1170719 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020), aff’d sub nom., City & Cty. of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 981 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Cook Cnty. v. Wolf, 498 F. Supp. 3d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2020).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Immigrant Legal Resource Center, “Public Charge Timeline,” last updated September 2021, available at <https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/public_charge_timeline_updated.pdf> (last visited June 8, 2022).+(last+visited+June+8,+2022).>Google Scholar
“DHS Secretary Statement on the 2019 Public Charge Rule,” Department of Homeland Security, March 9, 2021, available at <https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/03/09/dhs-secretary-statement-2019-public-charge-rule> (last visited June 8, 2022)+(last+visited+June+8,+2022)>Google Scholar
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Policy Manual, Chapter 10 – Public Benefits,” last updated February 10, 2021, available at <https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-resources/PMVolume8PartGChapter10_external-archive.pdf> (last visited June 8, 2022).+(last+visited+June+8,+2022).>Google Scholar
Supra note 36.Google Scholar