BTN News: Fifteen U.S. states filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against the Biden administration, aiming to block a regulation that would potentially allow 100,000 immigrants, who were brought into the country illegally as children, to enroll in health insurance marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The states, all led by Republican attorneys general, are seeking to prevent the rule from taking effect on November 1st. This date also coincides with the start of open enrollment for ACA insurance plans, a mere four days before the upcoming presidential election.
The central argument of the lawsuit revolves around the assertion that the new rule contradicts both the ACA and a 1996 welfare reform law. The plaintiffs claim that by offering ACA-subsidized health insurance to these immigrants, often referred to as “Dreamers,” the policy could encourage further illegal immigration and place an undue burden on state resources, including public school systems. However, this argument is counterbalanced by economic analyses that suggest immigration has a net positive effect on the economy, contributing to job growth and helping to stave off a post-pandemic recession.
The lawsuit, filed in North Dakota, one of the participating states, adds to the ongoing legal and political battle over immigration in the United States. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, known for his hardline stance on immigration, emphasized that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to access taxpayer-funded benefits, arguing that the Biden-Harris administration’s policy oversteps federal law. Kobach, who gained national attention for drafting Arizona’s controversial “show me your papers” law in 2010, is leading the charge along with attorneys general from 14 other states, including Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
The Biden administration, on the other hand, has defended the regulation as a necessary step to support Dreamers, who were brought to the United States as children and have since become integral members of their communities. These young immigrants have been shielded from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the administration argues that providing them with access to health insurance aligns with the broader goal of ensuring their success in the U.S. President Biden, in a statement made earlier this year, expressed pride in the contributions Dreamers have made to the country and reiterated his commitment to supporting them.
The core of the legal dispute lies in whether the new rule can legally grant these immigrants “lawful presence” for the purpose of obtaining health insurance, despite their precarious immigration status. Critics of the rule argue that this classification is inherently contradictory, as Dreamers could still face deportation without continued intervention by the Biden administration. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend that providing ACA-subsidized health insurance to individuals who are not legally present in the U.S. undermines the intent of the ACA and creates incentives for illegal immigration.
The economic impact of immigration has been a point of contention, with the states involved in the lawsuit citing increased costs associated with illegal immigration, including pressures on public services and education systems. They reference a 2023 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an organization advocating for stricter immigration laws, which supports their claims of the financial burden posed by illegal immigration.
However, the broader economic perspective suggests a more nuanced picture. Many economists have highlighted the positive contributions of immigrants, including Dreamers, to the U.S. economy. These contributions have been particularly noticeable in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, where immigration has played a role in bolstering employment and preventing a deeper economic downturn.
This lawsuit is just the latest in a series of legal challenges that Republican-led states have mounted against the Biden administration’s immigration policies. Previous cases have often hinged on whether the states can demonstrate that they face a direct, concrete, and specific harm as a result of new federal regulations. In this case, the plaintiffs are arguing that the rule, by increasing illegal immigration, will lead to greater financial strain on state resources.
The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the future of immigration policy in the U.S., particularly as it intersects with healthcare access. As the legal process unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the courts will side with the states in blocking the rule or uphold the Biden administration’s efforts to provide health insurance to Dreamers through the ACA.
