{"id":2322936,"date":"2024-08-12T07:19:01","date_gmt":"2024-08-12T11:19:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ags-sue-to-stop-new-rule-giving-free-health-care-to-illegals\/"},"modified":"2024-08-12T07:27:10","modified_gmt":"2024-08-12T11:27:10","slug":"ags-sue-to-stop-new-rule-giving-free-health-care-to-illegals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ags-sue-to-stop-new-rule-giving-free-health-care-to-illegals\/","title":{"rendered":"AGs Sue To Stop New Rule Giving &#8216;Free&#8217; Health Care To Illegals"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fags-sue-to-stop-new-rule-giving-free-health-care-to-illegals%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2322936&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Nearly 18 \u200dmonths ago, a legal challenge to a Biden administration proposal to extend Obamacare subsidies to certain illegal immigrants, particularly DACA recipients, was \u2062anticipated and has now materialized. \u200cLed by \u200cKansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a coalition of Republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit in\u2062 North Dakota against this policy change, claiming it violates federal law. They argue that the 1996 federal welfare reform law prohibits non-qualified aliens, which includes DACA recipients, \u200bfrom <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/newt-gingrich-the-gops-coming-u-s-senate-landslide\/\" title=\"Newt Gingrich: The GOP\u2019s Coming U.S. Senate Landslide\">receiving <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/house-gop-outline-failing-democrat-policies\/\" title=\"House GOP outline failing Democrat policies\">taxpayer-funded benefits<\/a><\/a>, contradicting the Biden administration&#8217;s\u2062 redefinition\u2062 of &#8220;lawfully present.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit contends that this redefinition, which makes DACA recipients eligible \u2062for subsidies, misinterprets existing laws, as these individuals are not considered legally present under the law. The complaint references prior court rulings that\u200c clarify DACA recipients are not lawfully present,\u200c hence ineligible for such benefits. The challenge raises concerns about the arbitrary nature of the policy change and the potential increase in costs to states, although the Biden administration structured the proposal to limit state financial burdens in hopes\u2064 of avoiding court challenges.<\/p>\n<p>While the lawsuit highlights concerns about the broader implications of incentivizing illegal immigration through expanded benefits,\u2063 proving a direct causal relationship remains difficult. Additionally, states \u2062like Idaho and Virginia,\u200b which operate \u200ctheir\u200c own health care \u200bexchanges, argue that expanding eligibility will strain their resources and administration. The case reflects ongoing tensions \u2063surrounding immigration policy and health \u2063care access in the U.S.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Nearly 18 months ago, <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/04\/26\/biden-invites-more-illegal-immigrants-by-proposing-free-health-care-at-your-expense\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">I noted<\/a> in these pages the &ldquo;likelihood of a legal challenge&rdquo; to a Biden administration proposal to make eligible for Obamacare subsidies certain illegal immigrants. That legal challenge just became a reality.<\/p>\n<p>On Thursday, a series of Republican attorneys general, led by Kansas&rsquo; Kris Kobach, filed suit in federal court in North Dakota seeking to strike down this change. The <a href=\"https:\/\/public-inspection.federalregister.gov\/2024-09661.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">rule<\/a>, which the Biden administration <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/05\/08\/biden-hhs-redefines-lawfully-present-to-give-free-health-care-to-illegal-immigrants\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">finalized this spring<\/a>, redefines the term &ldquo;lawfully present&rdquo; to make participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program eligible for Exchange subsidies.<\/p>\n<h2>AGs Allege Violations of Federal Law&nbsp;<\/h2>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/ag.ks.gov\/docs\/default-source\/documents\/daca-obamacare-complaint-8-8-24.pdf?sfvrsn=57c2b91a_8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">complaint<\/a> alleges that the final rule violates two provisions of federal law. First, the 1996 federal welfare reform law prohibited the receipt of taxpayer-funded benefits to non-qualified aliens &ldquo;notwithstanding any other provision of law.&rdquo; Because DACA recipients do not meet the definition of &ldquo;qualified aliens,&rdquo; the welfare law prohibits them from receiving benefits, irrespective of what Obamacare says.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit also alleges that DACA recipients are ineligible for subsidies under the statutory definition included in Obamacare itself. The complaint notes that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services&rsquo; (CMS) &ldquo;determination that deferred action recipients are lawfully present is obviously a self-contradiction: it defines as &lsquo;lawfully present&rsquo; the class of individuals whom [the Department of Homeland Security] is deferring removal action based on their <em>unlawful<\/em> presence&rdquo; (emphasis original).<\/p>\n<p>The suit cites both an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from 2019 that emphasizes that the DACA program &ldquo;does not mean that [participants] are in any way &lsquo;lawfully present,&rsquo;&rdquo; as well as a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling questioning DACA&rsquo;s own legality. It claims that the Biden administration&rsquo;s latest action violated the above-referenced laws and was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without considering the potential costs to states, reconciling contradictions with existing statutes, or providing a reason for changing an interpretation of the law that has existed for over a decade.<\/p>\n<h2>Standing Is a Concern<\/h2>\n<p>When the administration released its <a href=\"https:\/\/public-inspection.federalregister.gov\/2024-09661.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">final proposal<\/a> back in the spring, it made DACA recipients eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare Exchanges but not the Medicaid expansion to able-bodied adults (in those states that are participating in the expansion). The final rule claimed its deferral of the Medicaid proposal related to the &ldquo;unwinding&rdquo; states are undertaking to remove ineligible individuals from the rolls for the first time since the Covid pandemic.<\/p>\n<p>But I <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/05\/08\/biden-hhs-redefines-lawfully-present-to-give-free-health-care-to-illegal-immigrants\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">noted in May<\/a> that the possibility of a legal challenge provided the real reason why the administration decided not to finalize the Medicaid component of the proposed rule:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>By making DACA recipients eligible for Exchange subsidies (fully paid for by the federal government) instead of Medicaid (paid for by the states and Washington), the Biden administration is trying to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-hhs-redefines-lawfully-present-to-give-free-health-care-to-illegal-immigrants\/\" title=\"Biden Administration Expands Health Care Access for Undocumented Immigrants\">avoid giving states standing<\/a> to mount a legal challenge. In fact, the administration stated elsewhere in the regulation that the change &ldquo;does not require states to fund additional outreach and enrollment activities as a result of this rule.&rdquo; Apparently, the administration wants to avoid imposing any new costs on states &mdash; in Medicaid, on the Exchanges, or otherwise &mdash; because if courts grant a state standing to challenge part of the rule, it could create an opening to strike the entire rule down.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In the complaint, the states advanced two arguments intended to give them grounds to challenge the administration&rsquo;s action. First, the states claimed that providing subsidies to DACA recipients will encourage illegal immigration and that illegal immigration already poses significant costs to states. While a compelling policy argument, courts may look more skeptically at these types of general claims. Although one can understand intuitively that providing benefits encourages illegal migration &mdash; even <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=WTVQQubdJ-w&amp;t=44s\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Hillary Clinton admitted as much<\/a> &mdash; definitively <em>proving<\/em> that this specific change caused specific individuals to migrate, and imposed specifically higher costs on states, becomes more difficult.<\/p>\n<p>However, the complaint also notes that Idaho and Virginia administer their own state-run Exchanges. As such, it notes that &ldquo;expanding eligibility for [Obamacare] coverage will impose additional administrative and resource burdens on states &hellip; by allowing additional persons to use such Exchanges.&rdquo; While CMS claimed in the final rule that states will not incur &ldquo;additional outreach and enrollment activities,&rdquo; accepting and processing more subsidy applications will impose costs on states running their own Exchanges. Those higher costs should provide Idaho and Virginia with legal standing to challenge the final rule.<\/p>\n<h2>Kamala Harris Supports Alien Coverage<\/h2>\n<p>The suit also provides a timely reminder that the presumptive Democrat nominee for president, Kamala Harris, supports providing taxpayer-funded health coverage to individuals illegally present in the country:<\/p>\n<figure>\n<p><span><\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Kamala Harris Says She Supports Illegal Immigrants Getting Medicare\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/0BR-NsriOVs?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><\/span> <\/p>\n<\/figure>\n<p>While Harris has since renounced her support for a single-payer system of socialized medicine, she has not budged an inch from her statements regarding coverage for illegal aliens. If Harris ever deigns to answer questions from reporters &mdash; and if the Washington press corps ever decides to ask a Democrat presidential candidate tough questions &mdash; perhaps she should explain why she supports a Biden administration initiative that will <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=WTVQQubdJ-w&amp;t=44s\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">increase illegal migration<\/a> and quite possibly violates federal law to do so.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/game-show-judges-assess-players-on-their-unknown-knowledge\/\" title=\"Game Show Judges Assess Players on Their Unknown Knowledge\">policy consulting firm based<\/a> in Washington, and author of the book &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/dp\/1645720020\">The Case Against Single Payer<\/a>.&#8221; He appeared in the 1995 &#8220;Jeopardy!&#8221; Teen Tournament and is on Twitter: <a href=\"http:\/\/twitter.com\/chrisjacobsHC\">@chrisjacobsHC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>About 18 months ago, I mentioned the potential for a legal challenge to a Biden administration proposal that would allow certain undocumented immigrants to qualify for Obamacare subsidies. That challenge has now materialized. On Thursday, a group of Republican attorneys general, spearheaded by Kris Kobach from Kansas, initiated a lawsuit in federal court in North Dakota aimed at overturning this change. The rule finalized by the Biden administration this spring reinterprets &#8220;lawfully present&#8221; to include participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as eligible for Exchange subsidies.<\/p>\n<p>The attorneys general argue that this final rule breaches two federal laws. Firstly, they cite the 1996 welfare reform law which prohibits non-qualified aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits &#8220;notwithstanding any other provision of law.&#8221; Since DACA recipients do not qualify as &#8220;qualified aliens,&#8221; they are barred from receiving benefits regardless of what Obamacare stipulates.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the lawsuit contends that DACA recipients do not meet eligibility criteria under Obamacare&#8217;s own statutory definitions. The complaint points out that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services\u2019 (CMS) assertion that deferred action recipients are \u201clawfully present\u201d is contradictory since it designates individuals who are being shielded from removal due to their unlawful presence as \u201clawfully present.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The suit references an 11th Circuit Court ruling from 2019 which clarifies that participation in DACA does not equate to being \u201clawfully present,\u201d along with a 5th Circuit ruling questioning DACA\u2019s legality itself. It claims that the Biden administration&#8217;s recent actions violate these laws and were executed arbitrarily without considering state costs or reconciling contradictions with existing statutes.<\/p>\n<p>Concerns about standing arise because when the administration released its final proposal earlier this year, it made DACA recipients eligible for Exchange subsidies but excluded them from Medicaid expansion available to able-bodied adults in participating states. The final rule suggested its deferral of Medicaid was related to states&#8217; efforts post-Covid pandemic to remove ineligible individuals.<\/p>\n<p>I previously noted that avoiding legal challenges likely influenced why the administration chose not to finalize Medicaid eligibility: By allowing DACA recipients access only to federally funded Exchange subsidies rather than state-funded Medicaid programs, they aim to prevent states from having grounds for legal action against them. In fact, within other parts of the regulation, it was stated that this change would not require states to incur additional outreach or enrollment costs due to this new rule\u2014indicating an intention on part of the administration not impose new financial burdens on states.<\/p>\n<p>In their complaint, states presented two arguments justifying their challenge against these actions: First is their claim that providing subsidies will incentivize illegal immigration and exacerbate existing costs associated with it\u2014a compelling argument but one courts may scrutinize closely given its general nature. While it&#8217;s intuitively understood providing benefits could encourage illegal migration\u2014something even Hillary Clinton acknowledged\u2014proving direct causation between specific changes and individual migration patterns can be complex.<\/p>\n<p>However, Idaho and Virginia operate their own state-run Exchanges; thus expanding eligibility under Obamacare will create additional administrative burdens on these states by increasing user numbers on those Exchanges. Although CMS claimed no extra outreach or enrollment activities would be necessary for states under this new rule, processing more subsidy applications will indeed incur costs for those managing their own Exchanges\u2014providing Idaho and Virginia sufficient grounds legally challenge this final decision.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, it&#8217;s worth noting Kamala Harris\u2019s support for taxpayer-funded health coverage extending even towards undocumented individuals\u2014a timely reminder given her status as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee: Despite her retreat from advocating single-payer healthcare systems entirely she remains firm regarding coverage provisions benefiting illegal immigrants; should she face inquiries about such policies during press interactions perhaps she ought clarify her stance regarding initiatives potentially encouraging illegal immigration while possibly contravening federal law.<\/p>\n<p>Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group based in Washington DC; he authored &#8220;The Case Against Single Payer&#8221; among other works\u2014and appeared previously on &#8220;Jeopardy!&#8221; Teen Tournament back in &#8217;95; follow him @chrisjacobsHC on Twitter<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":521,"featured_media":2322937,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/President-Biden-Remarks-4.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[4606,3813,7976,33211,37868],"class_list":["post-2322936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-healthcare","tag-immigration","tag-lawsuits","tag-legal-news","tag-policy-changes"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/President-Biden-Remarks-4.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/521"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2322936"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2322936\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2322937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2322936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2322936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2322936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}