One commenter stated that the proposed rule will impose substantial costs black cat and sink co wash your paws retro poster on State and local governments such that federalism concerns are implicated. Other commenters stated that
black cat and sink co wash your paws retro poster
only applicants filing Form I-485 who are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility must file Form I-944. The Form I-944 instructions also explain that an alien black cat and sink co wash your paws retro poster who is exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility does not need to file Form I-944, and subsequently lists all categories of aliens that are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility. Therefore, DHS believes the declaration of self-sufficiency is appropriately targeted to the aliens that might trigger public charge concerns. As discussed in the NPRM, DHS has determined that the rule may decrease disposable income and increase the poverty of certain families and children, including U.S. citizen children. And as discussed previously, DHS has modified some provisions in ways that will mitigate the impact on families,
such as by exempting receipt of Medicaid by aliens under 21 and pregnant women. Ultimately, however, DHS continues to believe that the financial impact on the family is justified. Another commenter asserted that, even if the proposed rule were passed in the form of a statute, it would violate Article I of the Spending Clause for coercively restricting state use of Federal grant money. Several commenters stated that the proposed rule impermissibly overrides state authority. Others stated that the proposed rule would bar their states’ from providing state-funded aid to their own residents, regardless of immigration status. A commenter stated that the proposed rule violates the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it commandeers state resources by compelling agencies to implement the rule, especially in providing notice and information to applicants. Another commenter stated that the rule violates a federalism principle by imposing an unfunded mandate.