logo
US citizens and legal immigrants would be swept up in GOP drive to keep ‘illegal aliens' from getting government benefits

US citizens and legal immigrants would be swept up in GOP drive to keep ‘illegal aliens' from getting government benefits

CNN11-06-2025
House Republicans are touting that their sweeping tax and spending cuts package would kick many 'illegal immigrants' off federal assistance, fulfilling one of President Donald Trump's top priorities.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly emphasized that the bill would stop 1.4 million 'illegal aliens' from accessing Medicaid. The tax portion of the package has a section on 'removing taxpayer benefits from illegal immigrants.' And the House Agriculture Committee crafted a provision to restrict food stamp eligibility for 'illegal aliens.'
However, undocumented immigrants in the US won't be as heavily affected by the legislation since they already can't access nearly all federal government assistance programs, experts say. Those more in danger of losing some benefits are millions of legal immigrants, as well as children who are citizens but whose parents may be undocumented or have various legal statuses.
'It's part of a campaign of misinformation,' said Tanya Broder, senior counsel of health and economic justice at the National Immigration Law Center. 'This bill would deny eligibility to lawfully residing immigrants who have authorization to live and work in the US and who pay taxes that support the services that we all depend on.'
The legislation, which is now in the Senate, where it may be changed, would greatly limit the categories of legal immigrants who can qualify for a variety of federal benefits, including the child tax credit, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidies and Medicare. It also takes aim at states that provide Medicaid-like coverage to undocumented immigrants with their own funds.
Currently, immigrants' eligibility for federal benefits depends on their status, of which there are many categories. Among those authorized to be in the US, certain groups can qualify right away, others must wait several years. Some immigrant children and pregnant women can access Medicaid sooner if states opt to allow them. But immigrants with other legal statuses do not qualify for any public assistance. (All of them must also meet the other eligibility criteria for the benefit programs, including income limits.)
Undocumented immigrants generally only qualify for what's known as Emergency Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals for the emergency care they are required to provide. These patients would have to be eligible for Medicaid were it not for their immigration status. Separately, some states provide health coverage to certain undocumented immigrants, most commonly children, using only state funds.
At least one advocate for tighter controls on immigration thinks the House GOP bill misses the mark. Taking away benefits from immigrants already in the US does not address the underlying problem of illegal immigration, said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
'This bill nibbles around the edges,' said Camarota. 'Will it have that much of an effect? That's the question.'
The proposed changes could have devastating consequences for vulnerable immigrant communities, particularly those who rely on public benefits to survive, said Beatriz Ortiz, a senior staff attorney at the International Rescue Committee. Prior to joining IRC, Ortiz worked at Ayuda, where she represented immigrants as a staff attorney.
'If you don't give people the possibility … the tools, they won't have a dignified life,' Ortiz said.
One of the most consequential changes involves the child tax credit, which House Republicans want to temporarily boost to $2,500 per child, from $2,000. Under the bill, a child's parents would have to have Social Security numbers, in addition to the child.
Currently, families can receive the credit if the parents file their tax returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, which is used by some legal and undocumented immigrants — as long as the child has a Social Security number.
This provision could leave about 2 million children ineligible for the child tax credit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, which analyzed the bill. The Center for Migration Studies estimates the number is closer to 4.5 million children who are US citizens or lawful permanent residents, otherwise known as green card holders.
'It singles out and disadvantages US citizen children because of their parents' immigration status,' said Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noting that research shows the credit has a positive impact on children's health, educational attainment and, eventually, earnings. 'That's really alarming.'
Similarly, the 'Trump accounts' that the legislation would create would require both parents to have Social Security numbers to be eligible to claim the $1,000 federal contribution for their US-born citizen babies.
Fewer immigrants would be eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the formal name for food stamps, if the House bill becomes law. Refugees, people approved for asylum, domestic violence victims and survivors of labor or sex trafficking would no longer qualify. Only citizens, green card holders, certain Cuban parolees and migrants from certain Pacific Ocean island nations would be able to receive food stamps.
Between 120,000 and 250,000 people would lose access to this food assistance over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Families with citizen children would also feel the pinch – even if the kids would continue to qualify, the household would receive less assistance each month if the parents are no longer eligible.
Gloria, who fled gang violence in El Salvador in 2010 hoping for safety in the US, worries that she could lose a portion of the food stamps that she and her five children, who are citizens, depend on. The family receives a total of $900 a month in benefits.
'I'm about to have a baby; I'm a single mom. If this president decided to take it away, I would be very affected. I live off the SNAP benefits,' said Gloria, who lives in Washington DC and has a T-visa, a protection for trafficking survivors.
Gloria, who asked that CNN not use her full name for fear of retribution, said she was trafficked by her own mother and aunt in Maryland — forced to work at a carpet factory, sleep on the floor and hand over all her wages under threats of deportation from her own family until she finally escaped.
Gloria recently earned her GED, is studying to become a medical assistant and is also learning English. Still, she says she needs continued support to achieve her goals and become fully self-sufficient.
One asylum recipient from Egypt, who asked to be identified only as H.E. so as not to jeopardize his immigration status, told CNN that he depends on food stamps.
'If I lose those benefits, it's going to be bad,' said H.E., who lives in a shelter in Virginia, is unemployed and has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
The package would also block many legal immigrants from receiving Affordable Care Act premium subsidies and Medicare coverage, making it harder for them to obtain health coverage from both the government and private insurers.
Under the bill, asylees, refugees, temporary protected status holders and victims of domestic violence or sex trafficking, among others, would no longer be eligible for Obamacare subsidies or Medicare, even if they worked in the US for the 10-plus years it takes for senior citizens to qualify for the latter program.
One million more people would be uninsured in 2034 if these immigrants lost access to the Affordable Care Act subsidies, according to CBO estimates.
As for Medicaid, which House Republicans have targeted for steep spending cuts, the bill would not alter immigrants' eligibility for the federal program. However, it would levy steep penalties on states that have opted to expand coverage that's similar to Medicaid to a broader array of non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, using their own funds. Some 14 states plus the District of Columbia cover at least some undocumented residents through these initiatives.
The House bill would cut the share of federal matching funds these states receive for covering low-income adults under Medicaid expansion to 80%, from 90%, which would double states' costs.
How states would react would likely vary, but experts fear that many would have to limit or end their programs covering undocumented residents. The CBO expects this provision would result in 1.4 million more people being uninsured in 2034 – the figure that Johnson often cites, even though these folks are not enrolled in the federal Medicaid program.
The penalty could also hit the states that cover immigrant children and pregnant women with certain legal statuses – including those with temporary protected status and student visas – through a separate state Children's Health Insurance Program. Some 21 states have opted to do so for children and six for pregnant women.
But since the penalty only applies to states that have expanded Medicaid, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would be hit, for instance, but not Florida or Texas, said Leonardo Cuello, research professor for the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. Most states would not be able to afford to continue these optional programs.
'The states are going to have a huge incentive to drop their coverage because the alternative is a massive increase in spending,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Intel CEO to meet with Trump at White House, WSJ reports
Intel CEO to meet with Trump at White House, WSJ reports

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Intel CEO to meet with Trump at White House, WSJ reports

After President Trump called for his resignation last week, Intel (INTC) CEO Lip-Bu Tan is set to meet with Trump at the White House Monday, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal. Yahoo Finance Tech Editor Dan Howley discusses the latest. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief. But Dan, I do want to follow up and ask you about what's going on with Intel and its CEO Lip-Bu-Tan, who is reportedly going to be meeting with Trump today on a very different issue. Yeah, this is basically Trump trying to oust him. Uh he said that he had to leave the company, uh that he was, you know, quote unquote very conflicted. And this kind of goes back to his days with Cadence. Uh Cadence just settled a uh a suit with the government basically saying that they had provided some materials to a university that the government believes has links to the Chinese military. And so, you know, they settled, uh and then Senator Tom Cotton has come forward and said, look, you know, this is this is a big deal. Uh someone should, you know, look deeper into this. Uh Lip-Bu-Tan has some investments in Chinese companies. He is a US citizen. Uh and so, you know, there's this kind of back and forth as to, you know, does does do his prior uh, you know, uh kind of instances of investing in Chinese companies make him uh good for being Intel CEO or not. Related Videos Russia deal will be 'a canary for the markets' on US–China talks Trump's Nvidia, AMD China deal: National security risks persist Trump Says 'Not Up to Me' to Make a Deal With Putin Trump to Take Control of DC Police Department, Deploy National Guard Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Attorney for Hopewell vice mayor says lawsuit based on 'political disagreement,' not misconduct
Attorney for Hopewell vice mayor says lawsuit based on 'political disagreement,' not misconduct

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Attorney for Hopewell vice mayor says lawsuit based on 'political disagreement,' not misconduct

Calling it 'political disagreement, not actionable misconduct,' the attorney for Hopewell Vice Mayor Rita Joyner has asked a federal court to throw out former Hopewell City Manager Concetta Manker's almost $7 million wrongful termination lawsuit against Joyner. The paperwork was filed Aug. 8 in U.S. District Court in Richmond at the same time that the city of Hopewell filed its own motions to dismiss the suit. Manker, who was fired May 1 along with City Clerk Brittani Williams, filed the suit July 7 and is asking for a total of $6.85 million in damages, including punitive damages against Joyner, Mayor Johnny Partin Jr., and councilors Ronnie Ellis of Ward 4 and Susan Daye of Ward 5. Manker accuses Joyner of racism, citing several examples where the vice mayor reportedly said that Manker, who is Black, was 'Blacking up the city' by hiring people of color as major department heads. She also claims Joyner defamed her by calling her 'incompetent' in a 2024 email and stating that she hoped to get enough votes from the results of that November's election to have Manker fired. All four councilors who voted to fire Manker are White. Because Joyner was singled out for more than the others, she had to hire her own attorney and file a separate response. Joyner is represented by Virginia Beach-based attorney Anne Lahren. More: Judge continues Hopewell treasurer's case after her attorney asks to withdraw Vice mayor acted within 'authority' In the lawsuit, Manker cited Joyner for racism, defamation and blocking due process. In her response, Joyner's attorney said the vice mayor was acting totally within her authority as a Hopewell elected official and as one of seven people to whom the city manager is directly accountable. 'Joyner exercised her authority as an elected official to criticize Plaintiff's performance and advocate for a change in leadership consistent with the will of the voters,' the response stated. 'Plaintiff repeatedly characterizes Joyner's conduct as 'thwarting' her initiatives, opposing her policies, and expressing negative views about her job performance. These allegations, even if true, reflect political disagreement, not actionable misconduct.' None of Manker's allegations are 'a matter of law,' the response said. "The Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to establish racial animus, deprivation of a protected property or liberty interest, or actionable defamatory statements,' it read. 'Moreover, Joyner's actions as an elected official – expressing criticism, participating in governance decisions, and communicating with constituents and the press about matters of public concern – are fully protected under both constitutional and state law doctrines, including qualified immunity and the First Amendment.' Because Manker's allegations represent 'disagreement with the political and policy choices of the City's duly elected leadership, rather than any legally cognizable wrongdoing,' the suit should be dismissed, according to the response. More: 'Sad and difficult case': First of 3 suspects in Hopewell child's shooting death sentenced Mirrors Hopewell's response Joyner's response jibes with the official position of Hopewell in the case. That response, filed by City Attorney Anthony Bessette, calls the allegations 'nothing more than legal conclusions, or where the allegations permit a court to infer no more than a possibility of misconduct. It stated that Manker was terminated because she 'was not performing at a level that met the City's legitimate expectations.' As for the claims of racism, the city's response called them 'flimsy. 'The race of the decision makers does not give rise to an inference of discrimination,' it read. 'This is particularly true where the same four councilors who voted to terminate Dr. Manker's employment voted to hire Michael Rogers, an African American male, to be the Interim City Manager. Because Dr. Manker was not replaced by someone outside of her protected class, there is no inference of race discrimination.' While the lawsuit alleges that Ellis blew 'a racist dog whistle' when he circulated campaign flyers saying it was time 'to take back our city,' it also claimed he improperly made the motion to reconsider a February vote to terminate Manker because he walked out of the meeting. Ellis is a battalion chief with the Hopewell Fire Department, and in that position, Manker claimed he directly reported to her; therefore, his motion was a violation of conflict-of-interest. Hopewell claims that Manker's termination was permissible because her contract was not originally in violation of the act. Virginia's Conflict-of-Interest Act [COIA] states that only contracts and purchases that run afoul of COIA can only be voided, and it is silent on any other legal transactions. 'The termination of Dr. Manker's contract is neither a contract nor a purchase made in violation of COIA,' the city's response said. 'Therefore, even if the vote violated COIA, the vote is not void or voidable.' No dates have been set for preliminary hearings on the lawsuit. Bill Atkinson (he/him/his) is an award-winning journalist who covers breaking news, government and politics. Reach him at batkinson@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @BAtkinson_PI. This article originally appeared on The Progress-Index: Hopewell officials respond to former city manager's federal lawsuit Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store