Thurs 10/11: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me”.

(From Matthew 25:35 )
Well, here it is. The “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds” regulation page we hoped they had the sense and decency to kill before publication. (They don’t and they didn’t.)

Action #1 – COMMENT ON THE RULE!!!

This is the ONLY action that the government cares about. Due 12/10. Write early. Write often.

Comment  here.

This is our current favorite example: (Always try to alter a comment to sound like you. Obvious copies may be culled.)

Comment: This rule is xenophobic and racist. Its provisions about refugees utilization of food stamps, Medicaid and other public services in the US as a factor to deny green cards or deport refugees is cruel. These immigrants are heavily vetted as is, and are some of the most positive contributors to their communities. They are engaged, hard-working and important members of the US society. I think this rule should be discarded entirely to protect newcomers to this country who often fled violence and persecution in their home country.

Other comments to look over here and we’ve listed some examples at the bottom of this post. 99.9% of the current crop of comments make us proud to be American.

Action #2 – Use the ACLU’s page to comment

Use their page, customize the comment, here.

Action #3 – Numbers Count! Get everyone you know to comment on this rule. 


Here’s a “Protecting Immigrant Families” toolkit, containing sample tweets, Facebook posts, Instagram posts, Instagram stories and Newletter/email inserts to use in your own personal campaign to get the word out.


The existing rules – The Public Charge Fact Sheet.
The benefits that would be cause inadmissibility:

  • Cash assistance for income maintenance,
  • Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education),
  • Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy
  • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps),
  • any benefit provided for institutionalization for long-term care at government expense,
  • Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and Public Housing.

Comments to get you started.

It’s important that the comments are different. Identical comments will be weeded out and not counted.

Build-a-Comment: “I {(mix it up!) strenuously opposestrongly oppose, am opposed to, am disturbed by, etc…} the Public Charge rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I am {(mix it up!) appalled and offended} by this rule that will judge me or any immigrant by our wealth, status, education, and whether we have asked for public assistance. [LIST ADDITIONAL PERSONAL OR POLICY REASONS WHY YOU ARE OFFENDED. THEY SHOULD BE UNIQUE TO YOUInsert reason why you or a family or a friend might be negatively impacted by the rule. Or insert a story of why public benefits helped you/your family. Insert your thoughts on America’s values and how we can help integrate and welcome immigrant families coming here.] I urge you to withdraw the public charge rule, which would undermine our nation’s future.”

Comment: I don’t want to implement this proposed rule.

Comment: This rule change is unnecessary and is a blatant display of bigotry against an at risk minority population. This policy change is designed to intimidate people of Latino and Hispanic descent, and will overall cause harm.

Comment: I am appalled at the proposal to punish those immigrants who rely on public assistance. This would affect their children’s health and well being as well as their own. We have a duty to protect our most vulnerable population, especially given all they have been challenged with this past year.

Comment: This proposed rule is a horrible, racist idea, and I’m wracking my brains for any way that a non-racist could concoct or support it. No immigrant in the United States has received half as much public assistance as Donald Trump has in the form of low taxes and unprosecuted tax fraud, and unlike said tax fraud, the public assistance that immigrants use is legal! This entire administration, from the president down to the lowest grunt at USCIS, should be ashamed of itself.

Comment: This is hateful policy that is deeply un-American in it’s denial of equal protection under the law and in it’s revocation of opportunity for immigrants. And, in addition to that, it will hurt children of immigrants who rely on public services to eat (to eat!) and who came here with their parents (i.e., not with any intention of breaking US law). It’s really heartless, and I’m ashamed again of this administration.

Comment: I dont understand what the purpose of this… Trump already is building a wall, he’s deporting people left and right with any type of criminal record , and now he want to pass this law. Some of us have spent thousands of dollars on immigration lawyers, application fees, gas and now you tell me all those thousands of dollars is going to the trash because someone’s daughter or son was on Medicaid or any type of government help because they couldnt afford to add son/daughter on their insurance or they couldn’t pay for food to feed their family. I know thousands of other people like this. Give these people a break.This law is uncall for.

Comment: This attempt to penalize legal immigrants for seeking legal services is shameful. Immigrants are integral to our communities and many of them, particularly refugees, arrive here after lifetimes of hardship. Condemning them for wanting to feed their children -many of them citizens- or seek medical care is deeply cruel. It will weaken schools by sending more hungry and sick children to class. It will weaken the workforce by increasing the number of sick, functionally homeless, hungry, and poorly educated workers. Our success is greatest when shared. Reject this xenophobic rule.

Comment: A man handed nearly half a billion dollars in assistance from his father is now telling immigrants they arent welcome here if they have ever legally received health care or housing assistance.
The man I’m referring to in the above sentence of course is Donald Trump.
I oppose this proposed rule on the grounds that it’s too broad and would be unfair to immigrants who have not abused the welfare system, but used it to help them get back on their feet and become upstanding and contributing members of our society.

Comment: I am a public health professional working in a Federally Qualified Health Center that serves a population that is a majority uninsured or on Medicaid. Medicaid is an essential fail safe to keeping our entire American population safe and healthy. If immigrants are forced to choose between staying with their family and in the safety of the US or accessing a benefit like Medicaid, it violates their human right, and the value of this country of the right to pursue happiness. This an unfair choice. It will also put the public health of all Americans at risk. If immigrants are forced to choose not to access a public benefit like Medicaid (for which they are otherwise eligible), and cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare, this proposed rule has the potential to create a significant population who are un-vaccinated and/or with communicable diseases that go untreated. This would put the general public at risk! Please protect the health of Americans and all people living on American soil by withdrawing the proposed rule on “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds”.

Comment: In solidarity with Feeding America, and other organizations such as the Food Research & Action Center, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Foodlink strongly opposes the DHSs recent proposed changes to immigration policy, and urges the Administration to rescind it. In our ongoing efforts to end hunger and build healthier communities, this is just another barrier that unnecessarily makes people choose between putting food on the table, and gaining lawful residency or citizenship. This is a cruel policy, and would be implemented under the misguided view that immigrants do not contribute to our local, state and national economy. This policy would sow fear and uncertainty among immigrant communities, and certainly dissuade many from applying for needed health coverage and housing assistance, as well.

Federal nutrition programs were designed by Congress to be there for citizens and legal immigrants during difficult times, and eligibility for those programs reflects that intent. Tying their participation to their ability to reside lawfully in this country would roll back this longstanding principle and undercut our efforts to address food insecurity and poverty in our communities.

Comment: Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing on behalf of myself, ___  in response to the Department of Homeland Securitys Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to express our strong opposition to the changes regarding “public charge, published in the Federal register.

As a daughter of immigrants, I understand how difficult immigrants lives can be. We should not be making their lives more difficult by imposing a rule that scares immigrants from getting essential services. The role of government shouldn’t be to prevent immigrant families from accessing CalFresh and other services, it should be to encourage them to lift themselves up through these services so they can become fully productive citizens of the United States.

Under the proposed rule, any person whose family seeks or uses a wide range of health and human services programs including affordable housing, health coverage, anti-hunger and anti-poverty benefits could face barriers to maintaining or improving their immigration status. Under current policy, only cash welfare assistance for income maintenance and government funded long-term care received or relied upon by an applicant can be taken into consideration in the public charge test. The proposed rule would alter the test dramatically, abandoning the enduring meaning of a public charge as a person who depends on the government for subsistence, and would even scrutinize services used by an applicants dependents or family membersincluding U.S. citizen children who are entitled to such benefits.

The new policy would create a chilling effect, undermining access to health, nutrition and other critical programs for eligible immigrants and their family members. It would make child poverty worse by discouraging enrollment in programs that address health, hunger and economic security.

We should not be trying to scare people from getting the help they need.

This rule imposes arbitrary age and income tests, which favor the wealthy and make it even more difficult for individuals under age 18, over age 61, or as individuals living with disabilities to immigrate. Because this rule targets family-based immigration, it will also have a disproportionate impact on people of color. The rule also indicates a preference for immigrants who speak English, which would mark a fundamental change from our nation’s historic commitment to welcoming immigrants. The proposed policy would radically reshape our legal immigration system, redefine who is worthy of being an American, and what we look like as a country. No longer would we be the country that serves as a beacon for the worlds dreamers and strivers. Instead, Americas doors would be open only to the highest bidder.

For these reasons, the Department should immediately withdraw its current proposal, and dedicate its efforts to advancing policies that strengthenrather than underminethe ability of immigrants to support themselves and their families in the future. If we want our communities to thrive, everyone in those communities must be able to stay together and get the care, services and support they need to remain healthy and productive.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the NPRM.

Comment: This is a human rights violation. This is being proposed to please the fascists running our government right now. How dare any bloated salaried bureaucrat at DHS work against someone merely trying to survive in this country. Government benefits are way too low as it is, but you are also attacking immigrants in this country trying to use these meager benefits for survival.

I can’t reiterate enough how WRONG this regulation is. The “people” proposing this call themselves Christians; well let me show you a bible verse that explains the “Christ” part of “Christian” position on this regulation:

Matthew 25:31-46
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.” Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me. They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? He will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

It’s taking my all to avoid using curse words to express how adamantly against Christ this regulation is. To think that the people in power claim a moral superiority despite their hypocritical beliefs and actions, it honestly makes me SICK. This is just another example of xenophobes getting their way in government at the expense of human lives. People’s lives are on the line with this regulation! “I was a stranger and you did not invite me in,” says Christ. Well that’s EXACTLY what DHS is doing with this regulation.

I normally don’t quote or reference bible verses to make a point, but since the current administration clearly has no heart or rational thought system, I thought that a call to some form of religious guilt might help. Please don’t pass this regulation. This is a heartless and downright EVIL regulation that should be wiped off the plane of human consciousness. This is the kind of regulation that makes neo-nazis gleeful with joy. I hope DHS makes the right decision and pulls this regulation since its akin to keeping immigrant children in cages, separated from their families at the border. Don’t make the same mistake, again.

Why is this even something I have to tell a government agency not to do? Y’all need to look inside of yourselves and come to terms with how horrible you all are. Quit your jobs. Quit this country because you clearly don’t represent the good principles we sometimes uphold. Move to Russia or some other country that hates immigrants as much as y’all do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s