Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page H4923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ABANDON PLAN FOR ANTI-IMMIGRANT PUBLIC CHARGE RULE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to demand that the
Trump administration stop its assault on immigrant communities and
abandon its plan on public charge.
Now let me be clear: No one should be denied a visa due to their
possible, potential need for public assistance, also known as public
charge. It is beyond appalling that the Department of Homeland Security
is using this criterion to prevent deserving families from coming to
the United States.
This heartless and un-American proposed rule also makes it extremely
difficult for individuals who are seeking a new life in the United
States to receive a green card if they are considered likely to use
public benefits in the future.
If this rule is implemented, the Trump administration would expand
the list of programs to include SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance
to determine permanent residency.
Madam Speaker, basic programs are there to help struggling families
put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads when they need
it. Denying immigrant families green card status with this criterion is
just plain wrong.
This anti-immigrant rhetoric is not new, Madam Speaker. For over 100
years, the Federal Government has used the argument of public charge in
immigration law for inadmissibility or deportation. Public charge was
first created when the 47th Congress passed the Immigration Act of
1882. This restricted certain individuals from migrating to the United
States.
This legislation specifically targeted unmarried women who were
presumed to be a so-called public charge because employers would not
employ them, leading the government to take care of them, which is
ridiculous.
But it wasn't just women that this law targeted. It was also
immigrants from Asia. As many of us are aware, fear of Chinese laborers
was part of the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the time. There was
widespread fear of the Chinese influence on the economy and the racist
perception that these immigrants would not contribute to American
society.
This fear was compounded when Chinese immigrants started to bring
their families to America and use public infrastructure, such as
schools and hospitals.
One of my constituents, Dr. Elaine Kim, who lives in Berkeley,
California, experienced this discrimination firsthand. In her own
words, she said: ``I am 76, and I am a child of immigrants who arrived
in this country in 1903 and 1926, respectively. My parents were not
allowed by law to become naturalized citizens and faced very serious
racial discrimination in their lifetimes. But they both worked hard,
harder than most native-born Americans, all their lives. They
contributed importantly to the United States and never, ever caused any
legal, social, or economic problems to anyone in this country.
``At 76, I have also worked hard and consider myself a model U.S.
citizen. Putting myself through school at a time when most women, and
certainly most women of color, faced many obstacles, I finally finished
a Ph.D. degree. I served the public for 44 years until I recently
retired.
``When I was an impoverished single mother, I received help from both
the Maternity and Infant Care Project and unemployment insurance. Now,
after working hard and raising a family of hardworking, well-educated
children, I receive a modest Social Security check each month as well
as Medicare, though I have kept myself in good enough health as to not
need much from this entitlement program.''
Dr. Kim and her family came to the United States and contributed
greatly to our Nation. They used public benefits when hardships
occurred, but they paid it back in many ways when they no longer needed
the benefits to help their family get by.
The Trump administration is trying to create discriminatory policies
that would restrict families such as Dr. Kim's from even entering the
country. This harmful, xenophobic argument evokes fear and scapegoats
immigrant communities.
Let's get straight to the facts. This country was built and continues
to stand on the strength of immigrants. We know that a little help for
our hardworking immigrant families reaps exponential returns to our
economy and society.
Immigrants contribute in taxes, and they should be able to use social
services when they need it, just like every other person in our Nation
who pays taxes. Our immigrant community should not be seen as a drain
on America but as an investment in our future. We are one Nation.
In closing, I want to reiterate that it is the constitutional duty of
Congress to write our immigration laws and ensure that they are
equitable to all individuals, regardless of race, age, or socioeconomic
status. That is why, last week, during the Homeland Security
appropriations markup, I offered an amendment along with Congressmen
Price, Pocan, and Aguilar that would make it clear that no Federal
funds can be used to expand public charge.
We must defeat this anti-immigrant and un-American public charge
rule. I hope that all of my colleagues will stand up and demand that
the administration abandon this plan once and for all.
____________________