Washington, Dec 24, (NationPress) A coalition of 127 US lawmakers has called on the Trump Administration to retract its proposed modifications to the "public charge" rule, emphasizing that this action would introduce significant uncertainty into the legal immigration framework, especially for families transitioning from H-1B visas to Green Cards.

In a letter, 110 Congress members and 17 Senators urged the Department of Homeland Security to discard the proposal and maintain the current 2022 public charge regulations. They argue that the existing guidelines offer clarity, fairness, and consistency for immigrant families and decision-makers.

According to the lawmakers, "The proposed public charge rule will generate widespread uncertainty, inconsistent and arbitrary outcomes for those applying for permanent status or entry into the United States, and cause undue harm to US citizens," as noted in their letter dated December 19, which was made public on Tuesday.

The letter was spearheaded in the House by chairs of various caucuses, including Grace Meng from the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Adriano Espaillat from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Teresa Leger Fernandez from the Democratic Women's Caucus, Yvette Clarke from the Congressional Black Caucus, and Rep. Robert Menendez. In the Senate, it was led by Senators Mazie Hirono, Alex Padilla, and Cory Booker.

Three Indian American Congress members, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ro Khanna, and Pramila Jayapal, also endorsed the letter.

The proposal by the Trump administration aims to revoke the clear 2022 public charge regulations and substitute them with what lawmakers characterized as ambiguous and undefined criteria, delegating future decisions to fluctuating "policy and interpretive tools".

The lawmakers cautioned that this approach would encourage arbitrary decision-making, instill fear among immigrant families, and deteriorate trust in the legal immigration system.

The letter points out that by abandoning the current framework without providing a lawful replacement, the proposal would generate immediate uncertainty for families seeking status adjustments, including refugees, domestic violence survivors, trafficking victims, and children who have faced abuse, neglect, or abandonment—groups that Congress has long aimed to protect from punitive public charge practices.

"The chilling effects caused by broadening public charge interpretations are well-documented and severe," the lawmakers stated. Studies indicate that confusion surrounding previous public charge limitations led numerous eligible immigrant families, including those with US citizen children, to decline health insurance, nutrition assistance, and early childhood programs vital for healthy development.

The letter contends that the proposal contradicts long-established interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and poses risks of discriminatory and inconsistent law applications. Lawmakers also expressed concerns that the DHS might depend on undefined or potentially illegal data-sharing practices with other government entities, further compromising transparency and accountability in immigration decisions.

Members cautioned that fear-based policies would not only adversely affect immigrant households but also shift financial burdens onto state and local governments. They noted that decreased enrollment in preventive healthcare and nutrition programs could lead to increased uncompensated emergency care, deteriorate child health outcomes, and strain public health systems.

The apprehensions outlined in the letter resonate particularly for employment-based immigrants who encounter lengthy waits for permanent residency, a demographic largely composed of Indian nationals navigating the H-1B-to-green-card transition.

For Indian nationals, who represent the majority of the employment-based green card backlog, the warning about "mass uncertainty" is notably significant. Many Indian professionals remain on H-1B or other temporary visas for extended periods—often exceeding a decade—while awaiting permanent residency, simultaneously raising US-citizen children.

The lawmakers asserted that ambiguity surrounding how the DHS may evaluate past or lawful benefits usage could deter families from seeking the assistance they are entitled to.