The Senate is poised to debate a controversial measure that proposes significant cuts to social safety net programs for numerous groups of legal immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, while also increasing the costs associated with the immigration process.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill aimed at advancing parts of President Trump’s agenda, particularly concerning immigration-related policies that affect food assistance, health care, and education.
The overarching goal of this legislation is to curb spending and portray the Republican party as resolute in their stance on immigration.
However, immigration advocacy organizations have expressed grave concerns that if the bill is enacted by the Senate, it could result in hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants losing access to critical services.
“It’s not normal,” stated Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.
“I’ve never seen an attempt quite this harsh to try to really kick people out of being able to qualify for different benefit programs.”
The bill targets various groups of noncitizens who currently qualify for federal benefits, including those who have been admitted as refugees or asylees and those who have been granted parole.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposed changes could render up to 250,000 legally-present individuals ineligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), theoretically saving around $4 billion over the next ten years as part of broader $286 billion cuts to the program.
Additionally, the measure would impose new or increased fees for a range of immigration-related services, including a new $1,000 fee for asylum applications, a cost that many potential applicants may be unable to afford.
Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, remarked, “If you compare the fees in this bill to existing fees, the changes are so astronomical that it becomes really clear that these are not fees, but they’re penalties.”
Immigrant participation in public benefit programs is already relatively low, with most noncitizens required to wait five years before they become eligible for services like SNAP and Medicaid.
Gonzales highlighted that this legislation adds to pre-existing barriers, contributing to a palpable fear among many who are income-eligible but hesitant to engage with the government.
The pressure to limit public benefits for immigrants is not a new phenomenon; it dates back to 1996, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
“These will save some money and it will have some increased impulse to leave on your own,” Krikorian noted, but he added that the legislation is unlikely to deter new immigrants.
Historically, during Trump’s first term, the administration implemented the ‘public charge’ policy, which retroactively leveraged immigrant benefit use against their legal immigration status.
Under this framework, any usage of safety net programs could detrimentally affect individuals seeking further legal status, such as a green card.
In February, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate “all taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens,” though statistics indicate that eligibility issues related to citizenship are minimal—only about 1% of SNAP over or underpayments involve immigrants’ legal status.
Despite this, various governmental agencies have since increased efforts to identify improper payments tied to immigration status following Trump’s order.
Gonzales voiced concern over the consequences of these new restrictions, stating, “It’s extraordinarily concerning that so many children and adults are going to be harmed in this way, all under a guise that’s incorrect.”
Krikorian explained that currently, the way for parents without legal status to access benefits would be through their U.S. citizen children, a provision that the bill would not alter.
The House-approved legislation broadly seeks to eliminate public benefits for a range of vulnerable groups, including refugees, asylees, and survivors of trafficking and domestic violence who have received certain protections from deportation.
Negotiations just before the vote preserved some eligibility protections for green card holders, specific Cubans, and those from Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands under the Compacts of Free Association (COFA).
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) defended the bill, stating, “These programs are never designed to incentivize those who enter the country illegally.
And this is an American safety net,” he added, arguing it should not extend to noncitizens.
Moreover, the proposed changes would render lawfully present immigrants—inclusive of those under DACA—ineligible for Medicare and health care coverage through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
While the CBO has yet to disclose specific estimates for these measures, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) emphasized the necessity of the cuts during a markup in the House Ways and Means Committee.
He stated, “We have to do these things.
We have to make hard choices, and this isn’t a hard choice to keep people out of our taxpayer dollars who are in this country illegally.”
The proposed legislation also raises significant costs for legal immigration.
Alongside the banned asylum applications, individuals seeking to renew work permits, acquire temporary protected status, or file various requests in immigration courts would be burdened with new fees or increases amounting to hundreds of dollars.
Moreover, individuals attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully would be subject to a $5,000 fine, along with facing both criminal and civil charges.
The revenue generated from these fees is intended to support U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which manages immigration applications, including green cards and visas.
This agency primarily relies on the fees collected from these services for funding.
Krikorian defended the fee structure, stating, “It’s not implausible to say that you need to pay a fee as well, because our employees in USCIS are the ones doing all the work in assessing the applications and then, of course, in the DOJ, the immigration judges.”
However, immigration advocates argue the fee increases are excessive and align with a broader strategy to make life difficult for immigrants already residing in the United States.
Altman noted, “We see this fitting into the administration’s agenda, which is essentially to make life and well-being untenable for immigrants who are already here in the United States.”
As the Senate reviews the bill in the upcoming weeks, some senators have signaled that they will push for stricter measures against immigration-related spending.
In a hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) expressed skepticism over a hefty $46.5 billion request for border wall infrastructure, suggesting a reassessment of the cost versus the current low border crossing statistics.
While Paul acknowledged the symbolic value of the wall, he stated that such funding should be justified only in light of proven need.
Immigration advocates remain hopeful that the Senate will implement more substantive changes to the bill.
Altman urged senators to carefully reconsider the political implications of the legislation, stating, “The American public does not want kids in their neighborhoods and in their schools to begin facing hunger in our own backyards.”
With discussions heating up in the Senate, the fate of immigrants and the broader implications of the bill hang in the balance.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5403815/congress-reconciliation-immigrants-benefits
