A Century After the Eugenics Movement, the U.S. Is Again Barring Disabled Immigrants – Ms. Magazine

Report on the Conflict Between United States Immigration Policy and Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

An analysis of the United States’ “public charge” immigration rule reveals significant contradictions with multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The policy, which directs officials to deny visas to individuals with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or age-related conditions, undermines global efforts to promote health, reduce inequality, and alleviate poverty. This report details the policy’s framework, historical context, and its direct opposition to the principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Policy Analysis and Contradiction with SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The revived “public charge” standard instructs visa officers to consider an applicant’s health as a primary factor in admissibility. This policy directly contravenes SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

• The guidance explicitly targets individuals with chronic health conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, and mental health conditions, as potential financial burdens.
• It extends to individuals beyond retirement age and those with dependents who are elderly or disabled, effectively penalizing applicants based on their health or age.
• This creates a chilling effect, where immigrant communities may forego necessary medical care and public health services for fear of jeopardizing their immigration status, as documented by the Migration Policy Institute. This fear directly undermines public health outcomes and the core mission of SDG 3.

Historical Precedent and Violation of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The “public charge” rule is not a new invention but a revival of exclusionary policies that institutionalize discrimination, in direct violation of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries.

1. Immigration Act of 1882: The original legislation introduced the term “public charge” to exclude any “convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself.”
2. Immigration Act of 1891: This act expanded the exclusionary criteria to more explicitly include individuals with contagious diseases and developmental or mental disabilities.
3. 20th Century Reinforcement: Subsequent legislation in 1903, 1952, and 1996 progressively strengthened the rule, linking the receipt of social services to deportation liability.
4. Connection to Eugenics: The policy’s origins are intertwined with the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which used pseudoscience to justify racist and ableist exclusions and “improve” the gene pool. This historical context demonstrates a long-standing use of immigration policy to enforce inequality.

Socioeconomic Impact and Opposition to SDG 1: No Poverty

The 2019 expansion of the “public charge” definition created significant barriers for low-income individuals, directly impeding progress toward SDG 1 (No Poverty).

• The expanded definition included the use of non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and housing assistance.
• Following this change, visa denials on public charge grounds increased from approximately 1,000 in 2016 to over 20,000 in 2019.
• By penalizing individuals for accessing essential support systems, the rule traps them in cycles of poverty and poor health, making it impossible to achieve the economic stability necessary to escape poverty.

Systemic Discrimination and Challenges to SDG 5 and SDG 16

The “public charge” framework is part of a broader pattern of discriminatory policies that challenge fundamental human rights and the integrity of institutions, affecting SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Forced Institutionalization: The policy aligns with domestic efforts to facilitate the forced institutionalization of unhoused individuals with mental illness, demonstrating a consistent agenda to remove disabled and marginalized people from public life rather than support them.
• Biometric Data and Gender Identity: A proposed Department of Homeland Security rule change could require DNA testing to verify biological sex, placing transgender, nonbinary, and intersex immigrants at significant risk of denial. This undermines SDG 5 by failing to protect gender-diverse individuals.
• Erosion of Just Institutions: These policies collectively weaken the principles of SDG 16 by creating legal and institutional frameworks that are inherently discriminatory, exclusionary, and unjust. They formalize ableism and transphobia within the state apparatus, undermining the goal of building inclusive and accountable institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article directly addresses health by discussing the denial of visas based on chronic health conditions like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. It also highlights how the fear of being labeled a “public charge” leads immigrant families to forego necessary medical procedures and stop using health-related benefits like Medicaid, negatively impacting their health and well-being.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This is a central theme. The article details how the “public charge” rule creates inequality by discriminating against individuals based on disability, health status, and age. It explicitly describes the policy as “ableist” and links it to a history of eugenics and racist exclusion. The proposed DNA testing for immigrants also targets trans, nonbinary, and intersex individuals, further deepening inequalities based on gender identity.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article discusses discriminatory laws, policies, and executive orders, such as the “public charge” rule and directives promoting forced institutionalization. These actions undermine the principles of justice, non-discrimination, and the rule of law, which are core to SDG 16. The policy changes represent an institutional failure to protect vulnerable populations.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services…
   • The article shows how the “public charge” rule acts as a barrier to this target. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) found that the rule’s expansion led many people to “reduce or stop using benefits or services for themselves” and that “some families forewent medical procedures that would require financial support,” directly impeding their access to essential healthcare.
2. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, colour, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • The policy described in the article does the opposite of promoting inclusion. It is designed to explicitly exclude people with “disabilities, chronic illnesses or age-related conditions.” The historical context provided, linking the rule to eugenics, underscores its function as a tool for exclusion based on disability and origin.
3. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…
   • The article identifies the “public charge” rule as a discriminatory policy that creates unequal outcomes for immigrants. It highlights the rule’s revival and expansion as a modern form of “eugenic immigration policy designed to exclude, control and institutionalize disabled and marginalized people,” directly contradicting the goal of eliminating such practices.
4. Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.
   • The article demonstrates how the expanded rule undermines well-managed migration policies by making them discriminatory and arbitrary. The massive increase in visa denials based on this rule shows a move away from orderly and responsible migration towards a more exclusionary and punitive system.
5. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.
   • The article critiques the enforcement of discriminatory policies. The State Department’s instruction to visa officers, the executive order pushing for forced institutionalization, and the proposed DNA testing rule are all examples of discriminatory policies being actively promoted and enforced by the government, in direct opposition to this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Number of visa denials based on the “public charge” rule.
   • The article provides explicit data for this indicator, stating that denials “exploded during Trump’s first residency, rising from just over 1,000 denials in 2016 to over 20,000 in 2019.” This metric directly measures the impact of the discriminatory policy (Target 10.3).
2. Rate of use of public benefits and services by immigrant families.
   • The article implies this indicator by describing the “chilling effect” of the policy. It notes that “broadening this public charge rule led many people to reduce or stop using benefits or services for themselves,” such as SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance. A decrease in the use of these services by eligible families would indicate a negative impact on access to healthcare and financial protection (Target 3.8).
3. Existence of discriminatory laws, policies, and executive orders related to immigration and disability.
   • The article itself serves as a record of such policies. It names the expanded “public charge” rule, the executive order on forced institutionalization of unhoused individuals with mental illness, and the proposed DHS rule for DNA testing of immigrants as concrete examples of discriminatory policies that can be tracked (Target 16.b).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: msmagazine.com