Source: https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2018/12/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:55:23+00:00

Document:
The Death of Another Child in the Custody of the United States.
The current caretakers of the Federal Government are setting records. More children have died in the custody of the United States at the border on their watch in a month, than died in the custody of the United States in all the years before taken all together. Ever.
Most recently, an eight-year-old boy in Federal custody at the border died on Christmas Day. See Laura King, An 8-Year-Old Guatemalan Child Dies in U.S. Custody on Christmas Day After Being Treated For a Cold, Los Angeles Times Online December 25, 2018.
A seven-year-old girl died in Federal custody at the border a week ago. See The U.S. Border is a Dangerous Place. Not by Mistake, Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog December 18, 2018. This is a postscript to that earlier death of a child in the custody of the United States.
If they do not gain entry to these places, then the answer to the next question is pretty clear: Is the death of children the latest anti-immigrant policy?
And if the answer to that question is "yes," then what in the name of Christmas are you going to do?
THE U.S. BORDER IS A DANGEROUS PLACE. NOT BY MISTAKE.
Initial reports of a 7-year-old girl's death in Federal custody were that the Federal agents of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a part of the Department of Homeland Security or DHS, were told by the girl's father that she was fine. He even filled out a Federal form that told the Federal agents the girl was healthy when she was taken into custody.
On the other hand, the initial reports of the little girl's death in Federal custody also were that her father told CBP that she "had nothing to eat or drink for days[.]"
These initial reports were from Washington, D.C. in the Washington Post. They were "based on reports and interviews with consular officers as well as Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection officials[.]"
In other words, the initial reports came from the Federal Government and from whatever was added by unknown, unnamed "consular officials" presumably familiar with Guatemala which is where this girl and her father came from. See Nick Miroff, Hours Before Her Collapse in U.S. Custody, a Dying Migrant Child's Condition Went Unnoticed, Washington Post Online Friday, Dec. 14, 2018 at 10:38 PM.
These initial reports of information provided by the Federal Government raise a few questions.
How could the child have been healthy if she had nothing to eat or drink for days?
How could the girl's father have told the Federal agents and filled out their form in English when he did not speak English? His "primary language" we are told is "a pre-Columbian Mayan tongue." Hours Before Collapse in U.S. Custody, supra. It is a pretty good bet that none of the people employed by the Federal Government at the border in the desert speak pre-Columbian Mayan. So they must have communicated with the father, not in English or in Mayan, but in what may have been obvious was his second language, Spanish.
Next question: The 7-year-old girl just crossed a desert with her father before CBP took them into custody. Normal people would expect that she was or might have been dehydrated. Even Little League Umpires make sure that the children playing baseball and softball stay hydrated during games in the spring and summer, whether or not the games are played in the desert.
The CBP itself is not unfamiliar with people crossing the desert. The CBP agents that took the girl and her father into custody are in the desert themselves so they can be reasonably expected to be familiar with the idea that being in the desert can be dehydrating if a person is not careful. Why did the CBP not notice that this little girl in the desert was dehydrated?
We are told that the CBP checked her out and found no signs. Yet we know that she was dehydrated because that is why she died after all. So why did the Federal Government not notice after they arrested her?
Next question: Why were the agents of the Federal Government apparently not equipped for this dehydrated, apparently hungry and certainly tired 7-year-old, who was one among thousands of people turned away from more urban ports of entry by the current Federal Government and forced to seek asylum by crossing a desert?
If this is intentional cruelty, then among other things it isn't even efficient.
The people just keep coming. Like this little girl and her father who were seeking asylum.
The current Federal Government apparently justifies this change in immigration policy at the border, as the CBP head told Congress three days after the child's death, to discourage people from crossing a desert to get into the United States who hope to avoid detection. With a seven-year-old? Not one of the reporters on this story seems to have asked that question, yet.
But to the contrary, all of the reporting about asylum seekers is in agreement on at least one thing: Asylum seekers like this little girl and her father "were not seeking to evade capture but to turn themselves in." Hours Before Collapse in U.S. Custody, supra (emphasis added). The Federal Government's justification does not even seem real. In any case, it is not suited to the situation faced by the thousands of people seeking asylum.
Next questions, both related to one another: Why did it take a week for the Federal Government to admit that the girl had died despite a legal requirement to report deaths within 24 hours, and why did the head of the CBP not say a word about this girl's death when he already knew that she had died by the time he, the head, testified to Congress about immigration?
The current Federal Government's current CBP head "did not mention the girl's death, which was disclosed by CBP only after The Washington Post inquired about it Thursday evening." Hours Before Collapse in U.S. Custody, supra (emphasis added). That answers that question.
A seven-year-old girl died in Federal custody. The current Federal Government has stepped up ... and blamed her father for her death.
More questions to come. These are enough questions to ask for now. But the questions will continue.
WE WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO KNOW.
News outlets report that there were many attempts by Russian nationals to contact American nationals about and during the 2016 campaign for President of the United States. Reports put the contacts together to identify at least 14 individuals.
So much reporting that there is really no surprise there. Current reports are useful in putting them all together however.
Some people have remarked that it is important to keep in mind that these contacts were not about bilateral US-Russia relations.
They were about making a buck at a time when it did not look like the preferred candidate of these people would win the election.
Something else is important to keep in mind.
It may be even more important.
It is this: We were never supposed to know.
We were not supposed to know about any one of these contacts, let alone know what we know about all of them.
There are undoubtedly even more contacts that we don't yet know about.
EVEN EINSTEIN WOULDN'T GET IN NOW.
TODAY is the deadline, Monday, December 10, 2018, for leaving Comments on the Department of Security's proposed re-write of rules surrounding "who is likely to become a public charge" because they are "likely to receive public benefits" and should, the DHS says, be excluded from living in the United States. Because of that, this article will be published as widely as possible including both on Claims and Issues Blog at https://claimsissues.typepad.com/ and Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog at https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/.
"USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] Evidentiary Requirements" proposals are set out by the "parent" of USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security in new proposed rules changes. One of these proposed changes, published at 83 FR at 51196, mandates "[e]vidence of the alien's most recent history of employment" in any consideration of "education and skills." The proposed rule is 8 CFR § 212.22(b)(5)(ii)(A), in 83 FR at 51291. This mandated evidence simply does not relate to a consideration of education and skills. If it did, the DHS would have put on evidence in its rationale to support this, but the DHS did not support this mandate with any evidence linking these separate concepts.
A good example -- evidence if you will -- of how education and skills simply do not depend on the four factors mechanically proposed on 83 FR at 51196 -- "the alien's most recent history of employment;" her or his "academic degree or certifications[;]" "occupational" skills or certificates, and "proficiency in English" -- was provided by the real-life experience of Albert Einstein. He famously failed mathematics, not because he was dull, but to the contrary he was too intelligent for the teacher. The DHS's rigid rules for considering the statutorily mandated evidence of "education and skills" do not allow for considering the actual circumstances of experience.
In particular, Congress's word, "skills," would be transformed by the DHS proposed rules into "occupational skills." (Emphasis added.) The proposed rule is 8 CFR § 212.22(b)(5)(ii)(C), in 83 FR at 51291.
The DHS's proposed rules refashioning Congress's words, here, refashioning both "education" and "skills," are unauthorized, contrary to Congressional intent, unsupported by any evidence, and to the contrary the available evidence militates against adoption of such proposed rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is reproduced from a Comment on the DHS proposed rules changes, titled IT ALL COMES BACK TO MONEY. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CONGRESS SAID: Comments to DHS Proposed Public Charge Rules 12.04.18. The complete Comment is available here as a pdf: Download IT ALL COMES BACK TO MONEY. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CONGRESS SAID. Comments to Proposed DHS Public Charge Rules. 12.04.18..
Leave your own Comments on the changes through the preferred submission Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. The federal government has assigned the following numbers to these proposed rules changes to identify your Comments on these particular rules: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012; RIN 1615-AA22.
THE IMMIGRANT'S TALE. A TRUE STORY.
The deadline is tomorrow, Monday, December 10, 2018 for leaving Comments on the Department of Security's proposed re-write of rules surrounding "who is likely to become a public charge" because they are "likely to receive public benefits" and should, the DHS says, be excluded from living in the United States. Because the deadline of December 10 is so close, this article will be published as widely as possible including both on Claims and Issues Blog at https://claimsissues.typepad.com/ and Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog at https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/.
The unnatural effect of the changes proposed by the DHS to who is "likely at any time to become a public charge," including imposing new burdens of proof and re-defining "education and skills" to be taken into account in making the determination, would if they were in effect have required the exclusion of immigrant Mary Anne MacLeod. She arrived in the United States from Scotland with the skills of a domestic and several hundred dollars in currency at present-day values.
However, she was allowed to come into the United States and eventually married one Fred Trump with whom she had several children. One of those children became President of the United States.
In sum, the changes proposed by the DHS to who is "likely at any time to become a public charge," including imposing new burdens of proof and re-defining "education and skills" to be taken into account in making the determination, are unauthorized by Congress. In addition, they are contrary to Congress's statutory intent. Finally, they are not supported with evidence provided by the DHS, but to the contrary, the available evidence proves them to be invalid.
They are in short the product of still another Federal administrative agency's regulatory overreach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------This is the Conclusion of a Comment on December 4, 2018 on the DHS proposed rules changes, titled IT ALL COMES BACK TO MONEY. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CONGRESS SAID: Comments to DHS Proposed Public Charge Rules 12.04.18. The complete Comment is available here as a pdf: Download IT ALL COMES BACK TO MONEY. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CONGRESS SAID. Comments to Proposed DHS Public Charge Rules. 12.04.18..
Leave your own Comments on the proposed changes through the preferred submission Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. The federal government has assigned the following numbers to these proposed rules changes to identify your Comments on these particular rules: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012; RIN 1615-AA22.
SNEAK ATTACKS AND REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR!
The deadline is this coming Monday, December 10, 2018 for leaving Comments on the Department of Security's proposed re-write of rules surrounding "who is likely to become a public charge" because they are "likely to receive public benefits" and should, the DHS says, be excluded from living in the United States. Because the deadline of December 10 is approaching, this article will be published as widely as possible including both on Claims and Issues Blog at https://claimsissues.typepad.com/ and Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog at https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/.
At the end of a week of leaving Comments, and following weeks of reading and researching 183 pages of DHS statements about its proposed "Public Charge" rules changes to exclude immigrants, I have come away with many definite impressions. One of them is that the proposed rules changes and what the DHS says about them are really a manual for customs agents.
The DHS says that they wanted to "clarify" and standardize immigration determinations of who should be excluded from the U.S. because a person is likely to become a public charge if she or he is admitted, but that is not what these proposed changes do. They make it much more complicated for customs agents and officers at the border to do their job if they admit people into the United States but easier if they default to excluding them.
All because the DHS equates "likely to become a public charge" with "likely to receive public benefits." The DHS has invented many formulas which would have confused Einstein, let alone be confusing to officers at the border. Here are the 183 pages of what DHS says about its proposed "Public Charge" changes: Download DHS Proposed Public Charge Rule.101018..
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenges a change to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual that took effect in January. The shift tells State Department workers evaluating visa applications abroad to consider whether applicants, their families or their sponsors have used a public benefit in the United States or might in the future.
Erin Cox, Baltimore Sues Trump Administration Over Legal Immigrants' Access to Public Benefits, The Washington Post Online (November 28, 2018).
Rewriting manuals and statutes. Changing rules and regulations. What is happening may sometimes appear in the light but it is done in the dark.
Lawsuits. Comments. We should not go quietly into their darkness.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.
It is December 7th. Remember Pearl Harbor!
Leave your Comments on the changes through the preferred submission Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. The federal government has assigned the following numbers to these proposed rules changes to identify your Comments on these particular rules: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012; RIN 1615-AA22.
Comments to the DHS Proposed Rules Changes 12.05.18.
The deadline for leaving Comments is December 10, 2018. Because the deadline of December 10 is approaching, my Comments of 12.05.18 will be published both on Claims and Issues Blog at https://claimsissues.typepad.com/ and Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog at https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/. As a result, this blog article may be longer than is usually the case here.
The following are my full Comments of December 5, 2018 in response to the DHS Proposed Public Charge Rules: PREDETERMINING PUBLIC CHARGE INADMISSIBILITY. In the Comments below, I am providing the addresses for you to be able to send your own Comments, and the DHS Docket Number etc. that the federal government agency requires in order to process Comments on or before December 10, 2018.
Re: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012. RIN 1615-AA22.
These Comments concern changes to Public Charge Rules proposed by the DHS. The previously filed Comments, UNAUTHORIZED AND MISDIRECTED filed on 12.01.18, are expressly incorporated herein by reference.
DHS's proposal for a radically altered so-called "Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination" is unauthorized, contrary to law and experience, and in particular but without limitation redefines the discretion of considering a discretionary affidavit of support to transform it into a mandatory demerit if there is no affidavit of support contrary to the will of Congress expressed in 8 USCA § 1182(a)(4)(B)(ii).
Proposed rule change to new "Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination" regarding an "affidavit of support," 8 CFR § 212.22(b)(7), 83 FR at 51292, is unauthorized and contrary to law and experience. The DHS testifies falsely when it says that "[t]he absence of a statutorily required affidavit of support" under "8 U.S.C. 1183a, conclusively establishes an alien's inadmissibility on public charge grounds." 83 FR at 51178. And again the DHS testifies to "an absent or insufficient required affidavit of support" again citing Section 1183a. 83 FR at 51178 & n.406.
Section 1183a never requires an affidavit of support. Other statutes may require an affidavit of support, but Section 1183a does not. More to the point, the "public charge" determination set forth in 8 USCA § 1182(a)(4)(A)&(B) does not require an affidavit of support.
It is the "public charge inadmissibility" determination in those provisions of Section 1182(a)(4) that this portion of the DHS rationale directly addresses and which are directly addressed by the DHS proposed rule changes. To say again, the "public charge" determination set forth in 8 USCA § 1182(a)(4)(A)&(B) makes consideration of an affidavit of public support in making that determination a matter of discretion, it does not make it mandatory. In basic and simple terms, subparagraph (B)(ii) of Section 1182(a)(4) declares that the public charge inadmissibility determination "may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title[.]" [Emphasis added.] In the law and in this statute, "may" conveys discretion, not a command. As used in this statute, it gives permission, it does not authorize punishment.
In this context, "may" has a settled meaning in experience and in the law which is, at best, ignored in the DHS proposed rules changes and which is, at worst, a re-definition of "discretionary" to mean "mandatory" because that is the DHS's desired result here.
In the specific case of "Family-sponsored immigrants" under the statutory framework established by Congress, an alien can successfully produce evidence on any of the factors enumerated for consideration by Section 1182(a)(4)(C)(i)(I), (II), or (III) without any affidavit of support at all.
Therefore the apparently contrary interpretation by the DHS of the statute is both unreasonable and unauthorized.
Moreover, to the extent that the language of the proposed rule change in 8 CFR § 212.22(b)(7) does not clearly convey the DHS's interpretation, DHS clearly stated its orientation toward the statutory provisions which address affidavits of support. As a result, the proposed rule change is not authorized and not a rational means to establish who is "likely to become a public charge" as required by Section 1182(a)(4).
Now go and please leave your own Comments. Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2018 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments to Proposed DHS Public Charge Rules. 12.04.18.
The deadline for leaving Comments is December 10, 2018. Because the deadline of December 10 is approaching, my Comments of 12.04.18 will be published both on Claims and Issues Blog at https://claimsissues.typepad.com/ and Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog at https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/. As a result, this blog article may be longer than is usually the case here.
The following are my full Comments of December 4, 2018 in response to the DHS Proposed Public Charge Rules: IT ALL COMES BACK TO MONEY. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT CONGRESS SAID. In the Comments below, I am providing the addresses for you to be able to send your own Comments, and the DHS Docket Number etc. that the federal government agency requires in order to process Comments on or before December 10, 2018.
DHS's proposal to redefine Congress' statutory standard, "likely to become a public charge," is unauthorized by Congress. Instead of a permissible interpretation, the DHS proposed rules changes which set forth an impermissible re-write of the statute enacted by Congress. The DHS's proposed rules changes are also invalid with regard to who is "likely to become a public charge" because DHS's proposed rules changes are not supported by evidence. Further, they do not take account of catastrophic circumstances that can cause people to apply for admission to the United States. For all these reasons, whether taken separately or together, the DHS's proposed rules are an invalid attempt to change the Congressional standard for excluding a person on the ground that she or he is "likely to become a public charge."
The DHS's proposed rules changes, including proposed 8 CFR § 212.21(c) at 83 FR 51290, attempt to re-write the determination required by Congress to say that "likely at any time to become a public charge" instead "means likely at any time in the future to receive one or more public benefits[.]" The Congressional statute has been transformed from considering the totality of the circumstances of who is "likely to become a public charge" to the totality of the circumstances of who is "likely to receive public benefits." The difference between the two is illustrated by the fact that the Congressional determination would take natural and man-made catastrophes into account; the re-written standard proposed by DHS would ignore disasters entirely even though catastrophes are a time when want is most keenly felt to paraphrase Charles Dickens. Experience teaches -- the evidence shows beyond dispute -- that disasters frequently require people to turn to receiving public benefits, and yet the DHS would allow no discretion to consider the circumstances.
Moreover, the DHS's proposed rules changes would place a burden of proof on applicants for admission which applicants currently do not face. Evidence under existing law is not the same as the DHS's proposed changes. It is irrational to impose a burden to prove a negative. This would render the Congressional statute meaningless. The proposed rules changes in this regard are therefore not a valid interpretation of the Congressional statute.
For example, the DHS proposes by defining an "alien's household" such that an alien "would have to demonstrate that his or her own assets, resources and financial status and his or her parent's or legal guardian's assets, resources and financial status are sufficient to support the alien and the rest of the household." 83 FR at 51184, with the proposed rules change in 8 CFR § 212.21(d) at 83 FR 51290-51291. It bears constant repetition apparently that under existing law whether a person is "likely to become a public charge" is determined by a consular officer or the Attorney General under the above-quoted statute. "In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph [8 USCA § 1182(a)(4)(A)] the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider" factors to be taken into account. This is not a burden of proof on the applicant for admission but a requirement that the consular officer or the Attorney General -- or in this case the AG's designate, the DHS -- must make a determination, that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S representative must consider certain things including "at a minimum" those factors which Congress ordered to be taken into account.
In law, the determination of whether a party has met its burden of proof, whether she or he has for example "demonstrated" certain things, is different from whether there is enough evidence to support the claim at bar. In the case of a person applying for admission into the United States, Congress set the standard at whether there is enough evidence to support the application at issue. DHS may not impose a burden that Congress itself chose not to impose.
Another illustration of the DHS imposing burdens that Congress itself chose not to impose is in the DHS's proposed consideration of Congressionally mandated consideration of "education and skills." The DHS proposals apparently conflate them with education and skills "if authorized for employment," to quote the DHS rationale for this proposal, 83 FR at 51189. The proposed rule is 8 CFR § 212.22(b)(5), at 83 FR at 51291.
Labor certification is a separate and distinct ground for exclusion. It is set out in 8 USCA § 1182(a)(5), not 1182(a)(4) which is the stated subject of DHS's proposals. Subsection 1182(a)(5) governs both skilled and unskilled labor, which is a different consideration entirely.
"USCIS Evidentiary Requirements" set out by the DHS at 83 FR at 51196 mandate "[e]vidence of the alien's most recent history of employment" in any consideration of "education and skills." The proposed rule is 8 CFR § 212.22(b)(5)(ii)(A), in 83 FR at 51291. This mandated evidence simply does not relate to a consideration of education and skills. If it did, the DHS would have put on evidence in its rationale to support this, but the DHS did not support this mandate with any evidence linking these separate concepts.
A good example -- evidence if you will -- of how education and skills simply do not depend on the four factors listed on 83 FR at 51196 -- "the alien's most recent history of employment;" her or his "academic degree or certifications[;]" "occupational" skills or certificates, and "proficiency in English" -- was provided by the real-life experience of Albert Einstein. He famously failed mathematics, not because he was dull, but to the contrary he was too intelligent for the teacher. The DHS's rigid rules for considering the statutorily mandated evidence of "education and skills" do not allow for considering the actual circumstances of experience.
PENALIZING THE DISABLED, monetizing PREJUDICE: Comments to the DHS Proposed "Public Charge" Rules Changes 12.03.18.
The following are my full Comments of December 3, 2018 in response to the DHS Proposed Public Charge Rules: PENALIZING THE DISABLED, monetizing PREJUDICE. In the Comments below, I am providing the addresses for you to be able to send your own Comments, and the DHS Docket Number etc. that the federal government agency requires in order to process Comments.
DHS's proposal to so-called "monetize" the receipt of public benefits and in particular the receipt of SSI or Social Security Insurance benefits is an attempt to penalize the disabled and put a money value on prejudice.
The DHS rationalizes that the Department of Health and Human Services "in some respects" equated "dependence" with the receipt of public benefits. Specifically, the DHS claims that HHS has put a money value on, or "monetized," indicators of a "lack [of] self-sufficiency and [so] be dependent on the public for support." 83 FR at 51164. That is not true.
The HHS did not say that.
Further, the DHS changes in this regard depend themselves on a claim that "it is possible and likely probable" that putting a money value on receiving many kinds of public benefits will successfully predict a "public charge" that should be excluded from the United States. The DHS claim fails not only because it is disingenuous, equating "possible" with "likely probable" and in the same sentence no less, but because it has no evidentiary support. Certainly the DHS provided no evidentiary support for this assertion, as it was required to do. Rather than providing evidence, the DHS stated that the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for a claim that HHS has yet to make.
Further, in making this claim and in writing these proposals the DHS has neglected to provide any definition of what the new changes mean by making benefits "monetizable." You and I may think that we know what "monetizable" probably means, but the DHS has not told us what the DHS has in mind with that term over all. There is no evidence to support that standard, and the DHS is in addition not authorized to declare that an excludable "public charge" includes a person who has received undefined "monetizable" benefits as a general presumption of law.
The proposed rule change is 8 CFR 212.21(b), 83 FR at 51289-51291. But to say again there is no overall definition either in DHS's own rationale or in the rules changes proposed by the DHS of "monetizable," no guidance to or reflection of proper interpretation of this newly invented federal regulatory word. The changes proposed by DHS fail for these reasons alone.
The DHS proposes to exclude people who receive SSI benefits by "monetizing" them in particular. "According to one analysis," says the DHS, "SSI expenditures totaled approximately $54.7 billion in fiscal year 2017, and represented one of the largest Federal expenditures for low-income people." 83 FR at 51166. Carried to its logical conclusion, this would be a reason to remove everyone who receives or has received SSI regardless of where they were born.
Once again the DHS does not tell the full story. SSI benefits represented 1.4% of the Federal Budget in fiscal year 2012. "Introduction to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program" at 5 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Revised Feb. 27, 2014). There is no reason to believe that the complete data recited in the "one analysis" relied on by the DHS for 2017 would be any different. SSI was 0.33% of Gross Domestic Product in the years 2011-2012 and "expected to decline to 0.23 percent of GDP in 2037." Id.
Finally and most important of all, 86% of SSI benefits are paid to the disabled. Those were the numbers as of December 2012. Id. at 4. There is little reason to expect the numbers to be any different in December 2018.
It is irrational and insupportable to exclude disabled people by claiming that disabled people are "likely to become a public charge." One human illustration will suffice here. The DHS proposals would have excluded Dr. Stephen Hawking, perhaps the greatest theoretical physicist of his generation, because he was in a wheelchair and spoke with the aid of a machine.
Courts are reasonably unlikely to accept this proposed definition of "likely to become a public charge" because of "monetized" "public benefits" including but not limited to SSI. Judges are unlikely to accept this for many reasons: These definitions are not authorized, they are not supported either by evidence or experience, and they rely on putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say.
Moreover, the reliance on SSI benefits in particular to exclude people from admission to the United States is an illustration of how unconscionable the DHS's announced conception of "monetizable public benefits means likely to become a public charge" really is: It is nothing less than an attempt to penalize the disabled and to put a profit on prejudice.
PUBLIC CHARGE NOT PUBLIC PARIAH. Comments to DHS Proposed "Public Charge" Rules Changes 12.02.18.
The following are my full Comments of December 2, 2018 in response to the DHS Proposed Public Charge Rules: PUBLIC CHARGE NOT PUBLIC PARIAH. In the Comments below, I am providing the addresses for you to be able to send your own Comments, and the DHS Docket Number etc. that the federal government agency requires in order to process Comments.
These Comments concern changes to Public Charge Rules proposed by the DHS. The Department's proposed addition of a "public charge" definition and of a "public benefits" definition are not authorized by Congress and are not the result of experience.
As was pointed out in an earlier comment, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference, Congress chose not to give a definition of "public charge" in the statute. Moreover, interpretation of any statute requires a look at the entire statute in which the provision to be interpreted is found. These defects render the proposed rules changes invalid, unlawful, and unauthorized. UNAUTHORIZED AND MISDIRECTED: Comments to DHS Proposed Changes to Public Charge Rules 12.01.18, which to say again, is expressly incorporated herein by reference.
The DHS interpretation in its proposed rules changes is contrary to the intent of Congress, which left the determination of "likely to become a public charge" to be established by the evidence provided to a hearing officer and ultimately to a judge. Congress clearly provided for a determination based on the characteristics of individuals as they actually present themselves, and not determined by detailed 'tests' contrived in advance. Congress simply did not intend for admission into the United States to rest merely on the arithmetical results of arbitrary numbers put into a contrived formula.
That is why Congress did not give a definition of "public charge." The DHS proposes, to the contrary, to define who is a "public charge" before any evidence can be introduced. DHS's proposed definition of a "public charge" excludable from admission to the United States is "an alien who receives one or more public benefits[.]" 83 FR at 51157. The DHS proposes to introduce a previously unknown definition of "public benefits," in turn, "to include a specific list of cash aid and noncash medical care, housing, and food benefit programs." 83 FR at 51158. The "public benefit" proposed rule in particular is set out as proposed 8 CFR § 212.21(a) & (b), 83 FR at 51289-51291.
For nearly a century, Federal case law has required evidence that aliens are "likely to become public charges" before they can lawfully be excluded from entry into the United States on that ground. The definitions of "public charge" and "public benefits" which the DHS proposes to introduce reflect the opposite of the clear intent of Congress. Congress clearly required a case-by-case determination of "likely to become a public charge" within the meaning of Section 1182(a)(4)(A), quoted above, and the Federal Courts have added that this determination must be based on evidence not opinions. The DHS proposals are not supported with so much as an attempt at evidence to support these definitions. The DHS simply proposes these definitions because it wants to, apparently. That is not good enough for them to become law.
The "public charge" and "public benefits" definitions written by DHS do not "clarify" the meaning and application of Section 1182(a)(4)(A) as the DHS says they do, they rewrite it. This the DHS may not do.

References: § 212
 § 212
 § 1182
 § 212
 § 1182
 § 1182
 § 212
 § 212
 § 212
 § 1182
 § 212
 § 1182
 § 212
 § 212