GOP's Budget Is This the End of the American Dream for Legal Immigrants?

The Republican Party's proposed budget package is stirring considerable debate as it targets significant changes to the social safety net for legal immigrants. The plan, already passed by the House and now heading to the Senate, aims to curtail benefits and increase fees, sparking concerns among immigration advocacy groups and raising questions about its potential impact.

Key proposals within the GOP budget package include:

• Cutting social safety net programs: This affects various groups of legal immigrants, including refugees and asylum seekers.
• Increasing fees for immigration services: Aims to make the immigration process more expensive.
• Restricting access to federal benefits: Targeting programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and healthcare coverage.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could render up to 250,000 legal immigrants ineligible for SNAP, saving an estimated $4 billion over the next 10 years. One of the most contentious provisions is the proposed $1,000 fee for asylum applications, a service that is currently free.

Critics argue that these measures are unduly harsh and could prevent vulnerable individuals from accessing vital services. Shelby Gonzales, vice president for immigration policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, stated, "I've never seen an attempt quite this harsh to try to really kick people out of being able to qualify for different benefit programs."

Here's a closer look at the proposed changes:

• Asylum Application Fee: Introducing a $1,000 fee, which advocates argue is unaffordable for most asylum seekers.
• Benefit Restrictions: Broadly stripping access to public benefits for refugees, asylees, and certain survivors of trafficking and domestic violence.
• Increased Immigration Fees: Raising costs for work permits, temporary protected status renewals, and immigration court filings.

Proponents of the budget package argue that it is necessary to save money and ensure that the American safety net is primarily for citizens. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., stated, "These programs are never designed to incentivize those who enter the country illegally... and this is an American safety net, and it shouldn't be extended to noncitizens."

However, immigration advocates counter that these measures are based on a false narrative about widespread abuse of benefits by undocumented immigrants. They emphasize that the vast majority of immigrants without legal status are already ineligible for federal benefits. Gonzales noted, "This is a false narrative about people who are undocumented getting access to services."

The Senate now faces the task of reviewing the House-passed bill. Senators like Rand Paul, R-Ky., have already expressed concerns about the level of spending, particularly regarding border security. It remains to be seen whether the Senate will make significant changes to the immigration-related provisions.

Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, hopes that senators will reconsider the implications of the bill. "We are looking to members of the Senate to take a fresh eye to this bill and to really calibrate the political choice here," she said.

As the debate moves to the Senate, the future of these proposed changes remains uncertain. One thing is clear: the outcome will have a profound impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants and the broader landscape of immigration policy in the United States. The coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether these controversial measures will become law, reshaping the opportunities and challenges faced by those seeking a new life in America.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/nx-s1-5403815/congress-reconciliation-immigrants-benefits