how many ts can you find in:
the u.s. department of homeland security may soon make it very difficult, if not impossible, for many family members of u.s. citizens who are seeking to gain permanent residence in the u.s. to do so. a proposed rule, not yet issued for public comment but leaked some months ago, enumerates a laundry list of cash and non-cash public benefits, the use of which could weigh heavily in determining the “admissibility” of thousands upon thousands of green card petitioners. some might even find that simply because their u.s.-born son or daughter has been receiving health care via a government-funded program, that will count against them in their bid to become permanent residents. and because the new rule pertains to safety net benefits that citizens as well as non-citizens may have tapped, it could affect millions across the country who live in “mixed status” families. if adopted, the damage to families could unspool over many years.
new york city officials are trying to allay the concerns of residents who’ve heard about the proposed rule. at a recent meeting at a bay ridge mosque, bklyner reported, new york city commissioner of immigrant affairs bitta mostofi was asked by one attendee whether it was true that welfare recipients would not be able to get a green card or apply for citizenship. in a city whose officials have worked assiduously to make sure that every person eligible for benefits from food stamps to housing assistance to health care signs up for those benefits, the concern is not an idle one.
gov. andrew cuomo in early august said the proposed plan is “ugly, it is cruel, and it is shamefully un-american.” nys assembly member andrew hevesi (d.–28th district), chair of the social services committee and 71 new york state assembly members wrote in a june 8 letter to donald trump: “these proposed regulations would be vindictive toward immigrants in the united states who are lawfully working through our legal system to attain resident status.” the letter noted that 704,000 children currently receiving medicaid or child health plus benefits in the state could be affected by the rule.
since more than a century ago, when officials turned away sickly immigrants coming through ellis island, the u.s. government has sought to ensure that immigrants not become a burden on taxpayers. but current law stipulates that immigration officials may consider only two things – cash assistance for income maintenance and institutionalization for long-term care at government expense – in making their decisions. the proposed changes, like many sought by the trump administration, seek to dramatically change by administrative fiat longstanding law and practice.
immigrant advocates, public health officials and others worry about the “chilling effect” the proposed ruling may have on the use of critically important health and other services by immigrants and citizens in “mixed status” families. the migration policy institute, in a study published last month, stated that nationwide, “an estimated 5.4 million to 16.2 million of the total 27 million immigrants and their u.s.- and foreign-born children in benefits-receiving families could be expected to disenroll from programs.” researchers at mpi base their estimates on responses following changes in welfare rules in 1996, which prompted many individuals, even though they remained eligible for benefits, to nonetheless decide not to seek them.
anecdotally, says claudia calhoon, director of health policy at the new york immigration coalition, there are reports that individuals receiving benefits through the government’s wic (women, infants and children) supplemental nutrition program are taking their names off their children’s benefits, keeping only their children enrolled in the program. available data for the wic program runs only through may of this year and isn’t disaggregated based on the immigration status of the recipient. but over the past nine months, the number of women enrolled in the program has dropped 7 percent nationwide. participation is trending down as well for the broader food stamp program, known as snap (supplemental nutrition assistance program).
yet, troubling as the proposed rule is, it should not be surprising.
it not only conforms with the nativist sentiments of the trump administration, but aligns neatly with the objectives of opponents of government programs. the prospect that millions, citizens and non-citizens alike, might for years to come suffer the consequences of poor health, nutrition and shelter if the rule is implemented seems not to matter to the policymakers in washington, d.c.

user
The text includes three hundred and fifty-six "t"s in total.
assistant