This week, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration can limit legal immigration to the US based on the likelihood that prospective immigrants might request certain forms of public assistance in the future, by expanding the meaning of the term “public charge.” A public charge currently is defined as a person who is likely to become completely dependent on cash assistance or institutional care (like a nursing home). The Administration’s new policy would expand this definition to include the likelihood that the person might receive health and other types of non-cash assistance—even temporarily. The policy strengthens the Administration’s ability to keep vulnerable people from migrating to the US.
Earlier this month, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) also issued a ruling on vulnerable people and migration, this one related to climate change. The UNHRC ruling is the first time the body has ruled on a request for asylum from climate change impacts. In its January 7 ruling, the UNHRC found that countries may not deport individuals facing “climate change-induced conditions that violate the right to life.” This ruling is relevant to the circumstances of many individuals seeking asylum at the Texas-Mexico border, who are fleeing climate-related destabilization and degradation in the global South.
Climate change and migration are hot topics in the 2020 elections—but neither climate change nor global migration is bound to the electoral calendar, and advocates should not wait to see “how the election turns out” to raise the issues with lawmakers.
We’ll be talking in detail about climate and immigration advocacy at the upcoming Texas Interfaith Advocacy Days February 16-18 in Austin. I hope to see you there!