Jeff Du

IM 6-11AP
5/31/19

The Economic Effects of Proposed Public Charge Laws

Although over a million immigrants become permanent residents of the U.S each year

(Huennekens 1), this number is currently declining, due to various policies being proposed and

adapted by Congress and the Trump administration. One of these laws, namely the public charge

law, alters the criteria for those obtaining legal and permanent status in the U.S. This legislation

was introduced in October of 2018, and received public input until December 10th. Although not

officially passed into statute, the public charge law represents a step by the current

administration to limit those who they believe will become financially dependent on the

government from becoming citizens of the U.S. On face value, restricting legal immigration

through the public charge law will reduce government spending on various assistance programs,

but the overall economic implications are much more negative; the change will not only result in

a decrease of government revenue in the form of taxes, but also will increase overall healthcare

costs for the nation. In addition, industries employing a substantial amount of immigrants will

see their eligible workforce shrink and costs increase.

In October of 2018, the Trump administration released a proposed change to the

long-standing definition of a public charge. When an individual applies to become a permanent

resident of the United States, they must demonstrate to the government that they will not become

a financial liability. Under this change, the government would define the public charge through a

variety of different factors, including “having a medical condition, currently receiving ‘any

Du 1
government assistance’...and not currently working or being enrolled in school full time”

(Boteach 5). The scope of the public charge law, as compared with previous versions, has

expanded greatly, as demonstrated in Figure 1 ​(​Boteach 6).

Figure 1. Comparing Long-Standing Definitions of public charge to the New Proposed Changes

Boteach, Melissa, et al. ​Trump’s Immigration Plan Imposes Radical New Income and Health Tests​. Center for American Progress, 19 July 2018. ​Center for American Progress​,

www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2018/07/19/453174/trumps-immigration-plan-imposes-radical-new-income-health-tests/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018.

As seen in the right of Figure 1, many different government assistance programs are

included in the new public charge law, such as Medicaid, Food Stamps (SNAP), and tax credits,

as opposed to “long-standing test” listed on the left. When an immigrant enrolls in any of these

Du 2
programs, it will be considered a negative factor that would lead to a determination of a public

charge. If given this distinction, immigrants “may be inadmissible and ineligible for adjustment

of status or admission into the United States” (​“​Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground”1).

In essence, they may be barred from entering and staying in the U.S, or becoming a permanent

resident. However, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services have discretion and must holistically view each applicant’s situation,

including factors such as “age, health, family status..., and educations and skills” (​“​Proposed

Change to Public Charge Ground” 1), meaning that a public charge determination will not

automatically result in the removal or denial of an immigrant.

When examining the public charge law, it is important to first understand the

fundamental rationale for its passage. According to the USCIS, “self-sufficiency has long been a

basic principle of United States immigration law”, and that since the 1800s, “Congress has put

into statute that individuals are inadmissible to the U.S. if they are unable to care for themselves

without becoming a public charge” ​(“​Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground” 1​)​. As such,

immigration policy, in the view of the U.S government, should be designed and structured in

which to limit the amount of potentially dependent immigrants. Preferably, the immigrants that

were allowed into the U.S would “rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their

families, their sponsors, and private organizations” instead of the government (“Inadmissibility

on Public Charge Grounds” 51123​). ​The public charge is emblematic of this attitude, creating a

potentially negative chilling effect on the immigrant population. Enrollment in government

programs will not automatically disqualify potential immigrants from entering and obtaining

permanent residence, but the mere presence of the law would incite panic and confusion among

Du 3
the immigration community. Immigrants would likely be “nervous about applying for benefits,

and some portion will in fact disenroll from benefit programs”, a number of up to 24 million

people in the United States (“Only Wealthy Immigrants” 4). This drop is due to the possible

repercussions of losing their legal immigration status, even if the specific individual would not

be affected by the change. As a result, the reduction in public benefit spending due to a lack of

immigrant enrollment has the potential to initially save a substantial amount of money for the

federal government.

Currently in the U.S, although the immigrant usage rate of public benefits programs

remains relatively low compared to native born Americans, the number still represents a

potentially significant amount of fiscal burden towards the federal government. In 2014, the

working age dependency ratio of immigrants, or the working population dependent on the

government or other forms of support is around 52.8% for immigrants ​(​Boucher 2​)​, meaning that

almost 53 out of 100 immigrant workers are dependent on the government for various forms of

assistance. Even though this number is lower than the dependency ratio for those born and native

to the U.S, the government views this as detrimental to the goal of a self-sufficient society. This

is further supported by immigrant welfare and government benefit usage rates. A 2015 Center for

Immigration Studies report found that “about 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least

one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing

assistance” ​(​Gomez 1​)​. Thus, the federal government, through the public charge law, seeks to

reduce these numbers by denying immigrants that have the potential to enroll in these programs

of their legal status. Considering that “the average per capita costs of government assistance for

an immigrant in the United States averaged around $3,718 dollars” ​(​Nowrasteh 2​),​ the total

Du 4
economic burden placed on the government as a result of immigrant welfare use represents a

potentially significant amount of government spending, enough to warrant legislative

consideration on policies such as the public charge law that would aim to address the issue of

public dependency.

The chilling effect therefore, in the view of the government, seeks to reduce the usage

rates and thus the overall welfare cost per capita of immigrants, saving a potentially significant

amount of resources in the process. The estimated 10 year savings as result of a reduction in

immigrant use of public benefits, as estimated by the DHS, averages to around 380 million to 1.1

billion dollars ​(​“Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” 51117​). ​The government believes

that these savings could be diverted towards other sectors of the federal budget, such as

education, the military, etc. However, although these savings appear to be relatively high, DHS

does not consider the potential economic repercussions that would result in addition to the

passage of this law, including the loss of income tax revenue and the increase in healthcare costs.

Income tax revenue, specifically from immigrant households, has the potential to be

tremendously affected as a result of the public charge law. The mere pretense of the law seeks to

reduce the amount of legal immigration into the U.S in the form of green cards. However, this

presents multiple negative implications for tax revenue, because a drop in the amount of green

cards issued empirically reduces the amount of employed workers as well. A 2017 Urban

Institute study concluded that decreasing the amount of green cards issued each year could

“reduce the number of employed workers [by] 1.2 percent in 2030, 3.7 percent in 2050, and 5.9

percent in 2070” ​(​Cosic 5​)​, due to skilled workers being denied permanent status and entry into

Du 5
the U.S. Although the Cosic study refers to a different piece of legislation designed to limit green

cards, it is not unreasonable to assume a similar outcome for the public charge law.

This reduction in green card workers is problematic because these individuals are

required to pay income taxes to the U.S Government, while non-permanent immigrants, such as

those on visas and with temporary status, can avoid paying income taxes each year if they are

“are present in the United States for less than 183 days during the current year” and have not

applied for a green card ​(​Fishman 5​). ​As a result, those who do not eventually receive a green

card are exempt from income taxes, reducing the amount of tax-eligible workers in the U.S.

Since immigrants provide an estimated $61.1 billion in 2012 to the U.S in terms of tax

contribution ​(​Tuttle 9​)​, they play a key role in funding the government and providing significant

revenue to sustain the U.S’s budget.

However, this aforementioned revenue provided by immigrants stands to decrease when

immigrants are more frequently denied green cards because of their supposed “liability” towards

the government. This is extremely problematic because on net, immigrants contribute more

revenue into the government than they consume. A study in Arizona found that the “state’s

immigrants generate $2.4 billion in tax revenue per year, which more than offsets the $1.4 billion

in their use of benefit programs” (“Fact Sheet” 1​). ​On a broader national scale, a 2018 National

Immigration Forum Study found that “although immigrants cost the government on average

around $259,000 in terms of public benefit use, the immigrant over that span has contributed

almost $800,000 back into the government (Kosten 1). The contributions made to the

government by immigrants in the form of tax revenue are significant enough to the point in

which they outweigh the cost of an immigrant’s public benefits use. Although immigrant public

Du 6
benefit use does cost the government a substantial amount, restricting legal immigration would

exacerbate the problem, resulting in even less incoming revenue for the government. The

implications of the public charge law do not extend just towards a reduction in tax revenue, but

also towards potential increases in healthcare costs as well.

Many of the programs included in the public charge law provide benefits to immigrants

relating to their health and vitality. Some of these programs include “Medicaid... Medicare Part

D Low Income Subsidy, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as

food stamps), [and] any benefit provided for institutionalization for long-term care at

government expense” ​(“​Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground” 2​)​. Thus, enrollment in any

of these particular programs under the public charge law could jeopardize immigrants on their

pathway towards obtaining legal status. In addition, other potential factors such as “having a

medical condition and being unable to show evidence of unsubsidized health insurance, the

prospect of obtaining unsubsidized health insurance, or other non-governmental means of paying

for treatment” ​(​Boteach 7​)​, could negatively influence an immigrant’s chance of obtaining

permanent residence as well. Even if these individuals have not yet enrolled in a government

healthcare program, the government can still potentially find a determination of a public charge

if they believe that the person will most likely enroll in the future. All of these factors contribute

to a potential mass panic among the immigrant population, who become unsure as to whether

their immigration status will be compromised due to enrollment in these programs. As a result,

the proposed rule would ”likely lead to broad fall offs in participation in Medicaid and other

programs among a broader group of individuals” ​(“​Proposed Changes to 'Public Charge'

Policies” 6​), ​not just those who would be directly affected by the changes. Even if certain

Du 7
immigrant households may not be adversely affected due to the change, the chilling effect

resulting from the passage of the law is likely to frighten these individuals into disenrolling in

these healthcare programs, just to ensure that their immigration status will not be adversely

affected. This mass disenrollment has two potential negative economic effects: reducing revenue

for the healthcare industry and affecting worker productivity.

Immigrants without adequate support from the government to deal with health care costs

place a significant financial burden on healthcare providers and hospitals. Because these

immigrants would lack coverage and access to essential assistance programs, health care costs

and other expenses would become much more difficult to overcome. This would initially force

many low-income immigrants to “skip routine primary and preventive care, which in the long

run, could lead to unmanaged conditions and more expensive care” (Orris et al 5). In the process,

health care providers and companies who treat a high number of immigrants would lose

significant amounts of clientele as less immigrants, without aid from the government, seek their

assistance. This loss of healthcare coverage due to the public charge law could result in a

potential loss of “$68 billion Medicaid/CHIP spending” ​(​Orris et al 4​), ​a substantial amount of

revenue for hospitals and health care providers. But these economic determinants are not just

unique to the healthcare industry; the entire national economy will be affected by the potential

negative health outcomes of immigrant workers.

When immigrants skip treatment due to affordability, their overall health declines as a

result. In the long run, this lack of care and treatment could result in “increased prevalence of

diseases, increased uncompensated care, [and] increased rates of poverty and housing instability;

(“Proposed Changes to 'Public Charge' Policies” 3), creating a significant barrier for these

Du 8
immigrant families. Trapped in the cycle of negative outcomes and unable to overcome the costs

for treatment, these immigrants will not be able to fully contribute towards society and the

economy, because negative health impacts productivity and efficiency of a worker. The lack of a

fully healthy immigrant worker affects the economic growth and government spending in two

ways. First, spending would be reduced in other areas as families struggle to pay food and health

costs. This could lead to a “potential loss of $24.1 billion due to the ripple effects of this lost

spending... ​(“​Only Wealthy Immigrants 6”​)​, due to the downturn in spending and economic

contributions that families make due to the now unaffordable costs of healthcare and spending.

Second, poor health care costs the U.S economy around 576 billion dollars per year (Japsen 1),

as a result of a loss of worker efficiency. Because many of these workers will potentially face

negative health consequences due to a lack of support from the government, the lost productivity

of these workers will cause the companies and industries employing a significant amount of

immigrants to be unable to function at full potential. Disenrollment in these government

healthcare and assistance programs does not just adversely affect the health and the well-being of

immigrant families; it also affects companies seeking to employ these immigrants.

The impacts of a loss of green-card immigrants due to the effects of the public charge

change extend not just towards government revenue and healthcare spending, but also towards

companies that employ a substantial amount of immigrants as well. Currently in the U.S, there

are 65 occupations in which 25 percent or more of the workers are immigrants​ (​Camarota 1​),

including “220,000 workers in the trade, transportation, and utilities industries, almost 150,000

workers in the education and health services industries, and more than 125,000 workers in the

professional and business service industry” ​(“​Economic Impact” 2​).​ Because less immigrants

Du 9
would be eligible to stay in the country and obtain permanent residency due to the new

requirements, the number of available employees for a company would shrink, and the abilities

of the remaining would be heavily compromised. In addition, since many immigrants in training

programs “depend on other benefits that would be counted against them -- such as SNAP or

Medicaid, ” many would not be able to “persist and complete their education” ​(​Bergson-Shilcock

8​)​. As a result, immigrant workers, due to the limitations imposed on them by the public charge

law, would find it much more difficult to complete their education and pursue opportunities due

to high costs for simple living essentials.

Consequently, this would create an extreme shortage of skilled employees for these

companies, who will have to look for other alternatives for potential labor, eventually seeing

their revenues decrease as a result. A study by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute found that

if the public charge law was implemented, it would “have a dramatic impact on Georgia’s

economy, creating job losses in the thousands, a dip in economic activity and a reduction in

federal funds flowing to Georgia between $139 million to $323 million” ​(​Owens 1​)​. A report by

UCLA concurs on a larger scale, reporting that in the case of California, “[the state] could lose

up to $1.67 billion in federal benefits” ​(​Scheitler 2018​)​, with thousands of potential lost jobs as

well. This represents just the potential implications on a regional level. However, on a national

scale, the negative detriments would be far greater. The Fiscal Policy Institute again estimates

that “economic ripple effects as a result could range from $14.5 billion to almost $33.8 billion,

while also losing anywhere from 99,000 jobs to almost 230,000 jobs” ​(“​Only Wealthy

Immigrants” 5​). ​The shrink in the eligible workforce results in a high amount of economic

Du 10
detriment to the productivity and revenues of companies with high immigration workforce

populations, contributing to overall economic decline.

However, the implications of the public charge law would not just affect the available

employee population, but also immigrant workers who are currently employed in these various

industries. When companies want to temporarily hire immigrant employees from abroad and

obtain them work visas, there will be more expenses and red tape as a result of guaranteeing

compliance with the public charge law. DHS acknowledges this fact in the original background

of the law, noting that “the proposed rule would also impose additional costs for seeking

extension of stay or change of status” (“Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” 11157​). ​This

issue presents itself through multiple forms; for example, a U.S. employer “is going to find it

more difficult and much less predictable to extend the status of a highly skilled worker” ​(​Rand

5​), ​due to the potential disqualification of status and green card eligibility. A company becomes

disincentivized to hire immigrant labor if they are required to go through the process of obtaining

legal status for a potential employee just to conclude that that individual would be ineligible to

stay in the U.S. All of these factors contribute to increased costs and efforts by employers to

ensure prospective immigrant employees will not have a public charge determination placed on

them. All in all, Rand further estimates that “compliance costs could top $1.3 billion over the

next decade” ​(​Rand 5​), ​a number corroborated by DHS estimates. Considering that the estimated

overall income of workers who would be affected by the public charge rule is “more than $96.4

billion” ​(​“Economic Impact” 2​), ​U.S companies and employees stand to lose a significant

amount of revenue and eligible workers if the implications of the public charge law come into

fruition.

Du 11
 Although the intentions of the public charge law are rooted in a fundamental goal to

reduce dependency, the law itself presents an ineffective method of solving this issue. Even

though there exists initial positive economic benefits stemming from reduced enrollment in

government assistance programs, the drawbacks in the form of reduced tax revenue, increased

healthcare spending, and economic costs for companies far outweigh in magnitude. Essential

programs such as Social Security and food stamps would not be adequately funded due to a

reduction in revenue provided by the immigrant population, while companies employing a

significant amount of immigrants could struggle to maintain their worker population. It is

imperative that lawmakers and the Trump administration both holistically understand all of the

unintended effects of the public charge law, and to make changes not only to benefit the millions

of immigrants living in the U.S, but also to avoid potentially serious economic consequences for

the American economy. The next section of the paper will analyze the severity regarding the

fundamental issue of government dependency and determine if introducing work requirements

presents an effective solution in addressing the issue.

Du 12
 As the public charge law itself is an inadequate method of addressing the problem of

government dependency, it is therefore necessary to examine the severity of the problem itself,

and to determine whether or not the issue of government dependency is worth addressing.

Additionally, a potential solution to the problem should be analyzed for effectiveness in reducing

dependence on these government assistance programs. This meta-cognitive analysis focuses on

the severity of government dependence and the financial problems it creates, while analyzing the

validity of work requirements as a solution towards mitigating the crisis.

Government dependency, even in small amounts, is still rapidly prevalent throughout the

U.S. In 2012, a Wall Street Journal report found that “49% of the population lives in a household

where at least one person gets some type of government benefit” (Spalding 1). In addition,

approximately 50 million in the U.S participated in means-tested programs such as food stamps

and Medicaid per month in 2012 (Mitchell 2). Problematically, because nearly half of all

taxpayers pay no income tax (Fraser 1), the issue of affordability for the government is further

exacerbated as significant parts of the population do not contribute as much back towards the

government in terms of taxes. In conjunction with increasing spending on these programs, this

creates a significant downward spiral that results in the increasing budget deficits and growing

debt seen today.

In the 21st century, the U.S has spent much more resources on funding these government

programs as a result of increased use and population growth. From 1964 to 2016, welfare

spending per person increased almost 7 fold, from 364 dollars to over 3500 dollars (Rector 10).

Overall, the government spends almost a trillion dollars a year on welfare programs (Smith 1), a

significant portion of the annual budget. Problematically, this gradual increase in spending is

Du 13
unsustainable in the long term, resulting in America becoming “permanently debt-ridden, more

dependent, and less self-governing” (Fraser 3). Instead of utilizing these resources on other parts

of the country, such as infrastructure or education, more and more money is poured into

maintaining these programs. Thus, these factors create the premise for introducing work

requirements as a prerequisite for government assistance.

Work requirements are nothing new; simply put, they require potential individuals to be

employed before they enroll in a welfare program. The purpose of these additional barriers is to

encourage personal independence and fiscal responsibility; instead of simply aiding these

individuals and “[failing] to address the root of joblessness and dependence on government”

(Clark 2), work requirements serve to provide temporary stability towards an individual so that

they can eventually gain financial autonomy. Considering that “the number of able-bodied adults

dependent on [welfare programs] remains ​near a record high​” as a result of a lack of enforcement

within many of these programs (Rasmussen 2), work requirements would thus emphasize

productivity among its participants, instead of simply promoting idleness. In some programs that

enforce work requirements, participants would have to work “for at least 30 hours per week”

(Smith 2) in order to stay enrolled, a requisite that other welfare programs such as supplemental

income and housing assistance could potentially emulate. Although this requirement initially

appears daunting for many individuals, in the long run the benefits they receive from working

outweigh the monetary loss of welfare payments.

Because work requirements contribute towards an overall decreased financial

dependency as well as an increased personal responsibility, once an individual has begun to work

and support themselves, it is much less likely that they will rely on assistance from the

Du 14
government. The promotion of working thus stimulates an overall increase in employment and

reduction in poverty (Rachidi & Doar 1), as a result in this increase in income. This has been

demonstrated in Kansas, where after the state in 2011 implemented bold welfare reforms that

included work requirements for a wide range of government assistance programs, families that

were previously on welfare programs but began to work “saw their incomes steadily rise, more

than doubling within the first year” (Horton & Ingram 2). Not only that, but many participants

were now contributing more to their local economies and providing more tax revenue for their

governments, transforming them from a financial liability to a contributor to the state’s

functionality. A nationwide implementation of work requirements would have similar positive

effects. Empirically, the Department of Agriculture found that after the various welfare reform

bills in the 1990s that introduced the concepts of work requirements, employment rates

increased, creating a “roaring economy” at that time (Rasmussen 2). However, despite the

significant correlation between the introduction of work requirements and increased economic

viability, questions still remain as to the actual impact of the former on the latter.

Although work requirements may be effective in reducing enrollment for participants,

this does not necessarily fully lead to more autonomy and financial independence. Research from

the Department of Agriculture found that “adding work requirements to [food stamps] doesn’t

increase levels of employment among recipients” (Weiner 1), instead discouraging enrollment in

the first place. With employment being only “marginally increased” by the introduction of work

requirements (Harris 1), participants will still potentially struggle financially due to the loss of

the welfare assistance. Since these programs are designed to assist needy participants,

disenrollment with minimal employment compensation only serves to maintain an individual's

Du 15
poverty level. As a result, research finds that “mandatory work activities result in ‘no statistically

significant or economically meaningful effects on income or poverty’” (Haskins & Hahn 4)

(Barlow 5). In fact, financial outcomes could even be worse off as a result of the loss of aid. In

the case of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, a short-term monetary

assistance program, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found that two million families

have lost their benefits “for failing to meet work requirements” since 1997 (Jones 1),

demonstrating the unintended consequence of reducing government dependency on the

participants’ livelihood.

While work requirements themselves succeed in reducing government dependence on

welfare programs, overall the financial effect on the participants themselves is controversial.

Thus, in order to maximize the effectiveness of these requirements, they should be utilized with

other means of promoting independence. For example, a successful welfare program should

“boost the education and skills of those subject to work requirements” (Pavetti 1), in conjunction

with work requirements themselves to ensure that an individual will be able to develop the skills

necessary to function autonomously. When combined with these additional forms of assistance,

work requirements have been empirically proven to reduce government dependency, and is thus

a policy the federal government should consider implementing on a large-scale, nationwide level.

Du 16
 Works Cited for Research Paper

“Only Wealthy Immigrants Need Apply” How a Trump Rule’s Chilling Effect Will Harm the U.S.
10 Oct. 2018. ​Fiscal Policy Institute​,
fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/US-Impact-of-Public-Charge.pdf. Accessed
4 Nov. 2018.
Bergson-Shilcock, Amanda. "Newly proposed immigration 'public charge' rule would harm
immigrant workers and US businesses." ​National Skills Coalition​, 12 Oct. 2018,
www.nationalskillscoalition.org/news/blog/newly-proposed-immigration-public-charge-r
ule-would-harm-immigrant-workers-and-us-businesses. Accessed 17 Dec. 2018.
Boteach, Melissa, et al. ​Trump’s Immigration Plan Imposes Radical New Income and Health
Tests​. Center for American Progress, 19 July 2018. ​Center for American Progress​,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/reports/2018/07/19/453174/trumps-immigrati
on-plan-imposes-radical-new-income-health-tests/. Accessed 16 Sept. 2018.
Boucher, Jean Leon. ​Dependents and Dependency Immigrants and the Future of the US
Economy.​ George Mason University, Feb. 2014. ​Institute for Immigration Research,​
s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/25543/original/dependents_and_dependency.pdf
?1499460198. Accessed 29 Oct. 2018.
Camarota, Steven A., et al. ​There Are No Jobs Americans Won’t Do A detailed look at
immigrants (legal and illegal) and natives across occupations.​ 26 Aug. 2018. ​Center for
Immigration Studies,​
cis.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/camarota-no-jobs-americans-wont-do_1.pdf. Accessed
23 Sept. 2018.
Cosic, Damir, and Richard W. Johnson. ​How Might Restricting Immigration Affect Social
Security’s Finances?​ 19 Dec. 2017. ​Urban Institute,​
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/95451/immigration_social_security_financ
es_0.pdf.
Economic Impact of Proposed Rule Change: Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds.​ 31 Oct.
2018. ​New American Economy,​
research.newamericaneconomy.org/report/economic-impact-of-proposed-rule-change-ina
dmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2018.
Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Public Benefits​. 21 Aug. 2018. ​National Immigration Forum​,
immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/.
Fishman, Stephen. "When Visa or Green Card Holders Must Pay Taxes." ​Nolo Law,​
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/visa-green-card-holder-pay-taxes-29639.html
Gomez, Alan. "Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare." ​CNBC​, 2 Sept. 2015,
www.cnbc.com/2015/09/02/report-more-than-half-of-immigrants-on-welfare.html.
Huennekens, Preston. "2018 New Green Card Data Shows Slight Quarter-to-Quarter Decline."
Center for Immigration Studies,​ 8 Aug. 2018,
cis.org/Huennekens/2018-New-Green-Card-Data-Shows-Slight-QuartertoQuarter-Declin
e.
Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds​. Department of Homeland Security, 10 Oct. 2018.
Office of the Federal Register,​
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-21106/inadmissibility-on-public-c
harge-grounds.

Du 17
Japsen, Bruce. ​U.S. Workforce Illness Costs $576B Annually From Sick Days To Workers
Compensation​. 12 Sept. 2012. ​Forbes,​
www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/09/12/u-s-workforce-illness-costs-576b-annuall
y-from-sick-days-to-workers-compensation/.
Kosten, Dan. "Immigrants as Economic Contributors: Immigrant Tax Contributions and
Spending Power." ​National Immigration Forum,​ 6 Sept. 2018,
immigrationforum.org/article/immigrants-as-economic-contributors-immigrant-tax-contri
butions-and-spending-power/.
Nowrasteh, Alex, and Robert Orr. ​Immigration and the Welfare State: Immigrant and Native Use
Rates and Benefit Levels for Means-Tested Welfare and Entitlement Programs​. 10 May
2018. ​Cato Institute,​ object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb6.pdf. Accessed 30
Sept. 2018.
Orris, Allison, et al. "Public Charge Rule Would Have Significant, Negative Impact on
Immigrants' Health Care and the Safety-Net Delivery System." ​Common Wealth Fund​, 20
Nov. 2018,
www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/public-charge-rule-negative-impact-immigrants-
health-care.
Owens, Jennifer. "Potential Changes to Public Charge Would Negatively Impact Georgia
Families, Economy." ​Georgia Budget and Policy Institute,​ 1 Nov. 2018,
gbpi.org/2018/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-rule-could-have-significant-impact-on
-georgia-families-economy/.
"Proposed Changes to 'Public Charge' Policies for Immigrants: Implications for Health
Coverage." ​KFF,​ 24 Sept. 2018,
www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for
-immigrants-implications-for-health-coverage/.
"Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility." ​U.S Citizenship and
Immigration Services,​ 16 Oct. 2018,
www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/proposed-change-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility.
Rand, Doug. "How Will The Public Charge Rule Impact Employers And Immigrants?" Interview
by Stuart Anderson. ​Forbes​, 1 Oct. 2018,
www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/10/01/how-will-the-public-charge-rule-harm-
employers-and-immigrants/#5dc8ced4995e. Accessed 13 Nov. 2018.
Scheitler, AJ. ​Proposed changes to immigration rules could cost California jobs, harm public
health.​ UCLA Fielding School of Health, 3 Dec. 2018. ​UCLA​,
healthpolicy.ucla.edu/newsroom/press-releases/pages/details.aspx?NewsID=308.
Tuttle, Joshua. ​Examining the fiscal contribution of foreign-born and native-born households in
the U.S.​ Sept. 2015. ​Institute for Immigration Research​,
s3.amazonaws.com/chssweb/documents/20046/original/IIR_Fiscal_Contribution_Report.
pdf?1441744016. Accessed 28 Sept. 2018.

Works Consulted
Gelatt, Julia, et al. ​State Immigration Enforcement Policies How They Impact Low-Income
Households.​ May 2017. ​Urban Institute,​

Du 18
 www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90091/state-immigration-enforcement-polic
ies_1.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept. 2018.
Greene, Jonathon. "Immigration Law Basics." The Greene Law Firm, Columbia MD. Speech.

Works Cited for Metacognitive Analysis

Barlow, Rich. "Making The Poor Work: A Solution In Search Of A Problem." ​WBUR,​ 14 June
2017, www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/06/14/from-welfare-to-workfare-rich-barlow.
Clark, Sandra. "7 Ways to Improve the Food Stamps Program and Reduce Government
Dependence." ​The Heritage Foundation​, 2012,
www.myheritage.org/news/7-ways-to-improve-the-food-stamps-program-and-reduce-gov
ernment-dependence/.
Fraser, Alison Acosta. "Dependence on Government vs. the American Dream." ​The Daily
Signal​, 18 Sept. 2012,
www.dailysignal.com/2012/09/18/dependence-on-government-vs-the-american-dream/.
Harris, Timothy. ​Do SNAP Work Requirements Work?​ 2019. ​W.E. Upjohn Institute​,
research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1315&context=up_workingpapers.
Haskins, Ron, and Heather Hahn. "Do work requirements work? A debate." ​AEI,​ 22 June 2018,
www.aei.org/publication/do-work-requirements-work-a-debate/.
Horton, Nic, and Jonathan Ingram. ​Work Requirements are Working for Kansas Families​. 31
July 2017.
https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Work-Requirements-are-Working-for-Kan
sas-Families.pdf,​
thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Work-Requirements-are-Working-for-Kansas-Fa
milies.pdf.
Jones, Sarah. "There's More Evidence That Welfare Work Requirements Don't Lift People Out
of Poverty." ​Intelligencer,​ 13 Nov. 2018,
nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/study-welfare-work-requirements-dont-combat-povert
y.html.
Mitchell, Daniel J. "How Big Is America's Dependency Problem?" ​The Federalist,​ 3 June 2015,
thefederalist.com/2015/06/03/how-big-is-americas-dependency-problem/.
Pavetti, LaDonna. "Work Requirements Don't Work." ​Center on Budget and Policy Priorities​,
10 Jan. 2018, www.cbpp.org/blog/work-requirements-dont-work.
Rachidi, Angela, and Robert Doar. ​How Effective Are Work Requirements?​ 1 Aug. 2018. ​Real
Clear Policy,​
www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2018/08/01/how_effective_are_work_requirements.ht
ml.
Rasmussen, Kristina. "Work requirements reduce dependency and protect the truly needy." ​USA
Today​, 26 Aug. 2018,
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/26/welfare-reform-immensely-popular-benefit
-work-requirements-column/999820002/.
Rector, Robert, and Vijay Menon. ​Understanding the Hidden $1.1 Trillion Welfare System and
How to Reform It.​ 5 Apr. 2018. ​The Heritage Foundation,​
www.heritage.org/welfare/report/understanding-the-hidden-11-trillion-welfare-system-an
d-how-reform-it.

Du 19
Smith, Marion. ​Solutions for America: The Unsustainable Growth of Welfare.​ 3 Aug. 2010. ​The
Heritage Foundation,​
www.heritage.org/report/solutions-america-the-unsustainable-growth-welfare.
Spalding, Matthew. "Why the U.S. has a culture of dependency." ​CNN,​ 12 Sept. 2012,
www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/index.html.
Weiner, Sophie. "SNAP Work Requirements Don't Increase Employment, But They Do Hurt
People Who Need the Program Most." ​Splinter​, 3 Jan. 2019,
splinternews.com/work-requirements-for-snap-dont-increase-employment-bu-183147500
8.

Du 20