2026年9月18日T10:00:29.456Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
一项即将于周五生效的特朗普政府新规定，预计将让许多合法移民更难获得绿卡——若他们已领取或被认定可能需要公共援助。与此同时，旨在叫停该规定的诉讼仍在联邦法院审理中。
此举是唐纳德·特朗普总统遏制美国移民数量（包括已合法居住在此的居民）的最新举措之一。
更重要的是，该规定可能会促使许多绿卡申请人及其家人放弃领取必要的联邦救助，以免被认定为“公共负担”，进而损害他们的获批机会。
以下是你需要了解的特朗普政府针对“公共负担”规则的修改内容：
长期以来，联邦移民官员在审查绿卡申请人以获取永久居留权时，会考量诸多因素，其中包括确认他们是否有经济能力自给自足。
1882年《移民法案》允许美国政府拒绝那些被认定可能无法自理、最终依赖政府援助的申请人入境——换言之，使其成为“公共负担”。
1999年，克林顿政府将公共负担定义为“主要依赖”政府福利的人群。当时仅将现金援助纳入考量范围，例如贫困家庭临时援助计划或补充保障收入，以及用于长期机构护理的医疗补助。
特朗普首届政府曾试图扩大这一定义，将食品券、医疗补助和住房补贴等非现金福利涵盖在内。该政府于2019年宣布了这项范围更广的规则，并于2020年正式实施。
然而，次年3月，一家联邦法院宣布该规则无效，拜登政府随后将其废除。拜登政府官员随后于2022年发布了一项新规则，将考量范围限定为仅现金福利，并明确表示家庭成员使用联邦福利计划不会影响申请人的审查。
这项新规定与特朗普首届政府实施的规则类似，但范围更广。
今年7月发布的最新规则允许移民官员在判断绿卡申请人是否可能成为“公共负担”时，考虑范围更广的公共援助项目。该规则同时废除了2022年的规定。
“在@特朗普总统的领导下，国土安全部正在恢复移民必须能够自给自足的基本原则，”国土安全部当时在X平台上发文称，“我们重申自力更生的要求，保护公共资源，并终结那些鼓励依赖辛勤工作的美国纳税人的政策。”
新规定并未具体指明应纳入考量的社会保障项目，仅表示国土安全部“将考量领取任何经过经济状况审查的公共福利”。
移民家庭保护联盟政策与宣传主管麦迪·格舒7月告诉CNN，这可能潜在地涵盖更广泛的基于收入的援助，例如食品券、医疗补助、儿童保育补贴、住房券和“领先起步”计划，以及某些税收减免政策，例如儿童税收抵免。
此外，新规定允许移民官员考量为家庭成员（包括公民子女）申请的政府福利。
根据国土安全部的数据，平均每年约有58.8万名申请人需要接受公共负担审查。
但所谓的“寒蝉效应”可能会产生更广泛的影响——申请人及其家人因担心被拒发绿卡而选择远离社会保障项目。
国土安全部估计，在其审查的六个公共福利项目中，约有95万人可能会退出或不登记参保，其中包括医疗补助、食品券、儿童健康保险计划（CHIP）和联邦租赁援助。
无证移民不会受到影响，因为他们没有资格获得公共援助。
移民维权人士担心，该规定会阻止符合条件的家庭成员申请或继续参与公共社会保障项目，包括学校餐食和WIC项目——后者为孕妇、新妈妈和幼儿提供营养援助和咨询服务。
“任何父母都不应该在喂养孩子和维持家庭完整之间做出选择，”食品研究与行动中心儿童营养项目与政策副主任克拉丽莎·海斯本周早些时候对记者表示，“我们不能让恐惧和困惑决定一个孩子是否有足够的食物。”
格舒还告诉记者，修订后的规则“实际上让绿卡申请过程容易出现基于党派政治或个人偏见的滥用”。
维权人士表示，此前针对特朗普首届政府规则的研究发现，2019年和2020年，移民家庭和公民子女的福利参与率有所下降，即便其中一些人当时并不受该规则约束。
同样，最新的这项规定也将产生广泛影响。乔治华盛顿大学去年12月发布的一项针对该拟议规则的分析研究显示，约370万移民家庭成员可能会失去医疗补助、食品券、住房福利和其他援助。随着医疗保健提供商、杂货店和其他企业收入减少，各州经济可能损失274亿美元。可能多达21.2万个工作岗位将流失。
为何有多个州和城市提起诉讼？
由纽约州牵头的22个州和哥伦比亚特区联盟提起诉讼，试图阻止该规定。由纽约市市长佐赫兰·曼达尼牵头的多个城市也提起了类似诉讼。这两起诉讼均于周一在纽约南区联邦地区法院提交。
各州辩称，如果移民（尤其是混合身份家庭）因担心移民后果而退出社会保障项目，他们将损失数十亿美元的联邦资金。他们还表示，新规定赋予了“移民官员不受限制的自由裁量权，可基于公共负担理由决定谁可以被拒签”。
根据诉讼文件，此类裁定可能“从根本上背离了‘公共负担’一词的核心含义”。
与此同时，城市在诉讼文件中表示，该规定将损害其公共卫生和经济利益，包括将医疗、食品和住房成本转嫁给城市，并损害其劳动力。
除非在法院被阻止，否则该规定将于周五正式生效。
纽约南区联邦地区法院法官罗妮·艾布拉姆斯（奥巴马任命的法官）为各州提起的诉讼设定了10月9日的首次听证会。
CNN的格洛丽亚·帕兹米诺为本报道撰稿。
Why Trump’s new rule for green card applicants is sparking controversy
2026-09-18T10:00:29.456Z / CNN
A new Trump administration rule that is expected to make it harder for many legal immigrants to obtain green cards if they receive or are deemed likely to need public assistance is set to take effect Friday – even as lawsuits seeking to halt it wind their way through federal court.
The effort is one of President Donald Trump’s latest moves to curb the number of immigrants in the US, including residents already living here legally.
What’s more, the rule could prompt many green card applicants and their families to forgo receiving needed federal aid to avoid becoming considered “public charges” and hurting their chances of being approved.
Here’s what you need to know about Trump’s changes to the “public charge” rule:
Federal immigration officers have long reviewed green card applicants to ascertain whether they have the financial means to support themselves, among other considerations, to obtain permanent residency.
The Immigration Act of 1882 allowed the US government to deny entry to applicants deemed likely to be unable to take care of themselves and wind up dependent on government assistance – in other words, become “public charges.”
In 1999, the Clinton administration defined a public charge as someone “primarily dependent” on government benefits. It considered only cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security Income, and Medicaid for long-term institutional care.
The first Trump administration sought to widen that definition to encompass non-cash benefits, such as food stamps, Medicaid and housing subsidies. It announced the broader rule in 2019 and put it into effect in 2020.
However, the following March, a federal court nullified the rule, and the Biden administration rescinded it. Biden officials then issued a new rule in 2022 limiting consideration to cash benefits only and clarifying that family members’ use of federal benefit programs does not have an impact on applicants’ reviews.
The new rule is similar to what was implemented by the first Trump administration but more expansive.
The latest rule, published in July, allows immigration officers to consider a wider array of public assistance programs when determining whether green card applicants will likely become “public charges.” It also rescinds the 2022 rule.
“Under @POTUS Trump, DHS is restoring the basic principle that immigrants must be able to support themselves,” the Department of Homeland Security posted to X at the time. “We are reaffirming the requirement of self-reliance, protecting public resources, and ending policies that encouraged dependency on hard-working American taxpayers.”
The new rule does not specify which safety net programs should be considered, saying only that DHS “will consider the receipt of any means tested public benefits.”
That could potentially include a wider array of income-based assistance, such as food stamps, Medicaid, childcare subsidies, housing vouchers and Head Start, as well as certain tax breaks, such as the child tax credit, Maddie Geschu, director of policy and advocacy at the Protecting Immigrant Families Coalition, told CNN in July.
Also, the new rule allows immigration officers to consider government benefits applied for on behalf of family members, including children who are citizens.
About 588,000 applicants are subject to public charge reviews annually, on average, according to DHS.
But the so-called “chilling effect” could have an even wider impact as applicants and their families opt to stay away from safety net programs for fear of being denied green cards.
DHS estimates that about 950,000 people may opt to leave or not enroll in six public benefits programs it examined, including Medicaid, food stamps, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and federal rental assistance.
Undocumented immigrants would not be affected since they do not qualify for public aid.
Immigration advocates fear that the rule will deter eligible family members from applying for or remaining enrolled in public safety net programs, including school meals and WIC, which provides nutrition assistance and counseling to pregnant women, new mothers and young children.
“No parent should ever have to choose between feeding their children and keeping their family together,” Clarissa Hayes, deputy director of child nutrition programs and policy at the Food Research & Action Center, told reporters earlier this week. “We cannot allow fear and confusion to determine whether or not a child will have enough to eat.”
Also, the revised rule “really opens the green card process to abuse based on partisan politics or personal bias,” Geschu told reporters.
Earlier research on the prior Trump administration rule found that participation in programs among immigrant families and citizen children declined in 2019 and 2020, even among those not subject to it at the time, the advocates said.
Similarly, the latest effort would have widespread consequences. Some 3.7 million members of immigrant households could lose Medicaid, food stamps, housing benefits and other assistance, according to a George Washington University study published in December that analyzed the proposed rule. State economies could lose $27.4 billion as healthcare providers, grocery stores and other businesses lose revenue. Up to 212,000 jobs could be lost.
Why have some states and cities filed lawsuits?
A coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia, led by New York, are suing to block the rule. A group of cities, led by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, has filed a similar lawsuit. They were both filed Monday in the Southern District of New York.
The states argue they would lose billions of dollars in federal funding if immigrants, particularly mixed-status families, disenroll from safety net programs due to fears about immigration consequences. And they say that the new rule gives “unfettered discretion for immigration officials to determine who can be excluded on public charge grounds.”
The determinations could “fundamentally depart from the core meaning of the term” public charge, according to the filing.
The cities, meanwhile, say in their filing that the rule will harm their public health and economic interests, including shifting costs for healthcare, food and housing to the cities and hurting their labor forces.
The rule is scheduled to go into effect on Friday, unless it is blocked in court.
Federal District Court Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York, an Obama appointee, set an initial conference for October 9 for the lawsuit brought by the states.
CNN’s Gloria Pazmino contributed to this report.
发表回复