But in a climate of heightened anti-immigrant sentiment, immigrant families have been increasingly opting out of SNAP, even before the new public-charge rule was announced. A recent study of almost 40,000 caregivers of young children found that SNAP participation decreased markedly among immigrant families in 2018, especially for families who had been in the United States for less than five years. And in our research with low-income Latina immigrant mothers and their families in North Carolina, we witnessed how their fears grew over time and prevented them from seeking the public supports to which they were entitled.

Take the case of Claudia, a woman who had immigrated from Mexico 14 years before we first interviewed her. During the time we knew her, Claudia had legal but temporary residency. Her five children, all born in the United States, were American citizens and eligible for SNAP, while Claudia’s partner, a day laborer, was undocumented.

During the winters, when Claudia’s partner couldn’t find enough work, her family frequently experienced food shortages. “There have been times when we were in bad shape and we’d run out of food,” Claudia recalled. “But what could I do? We didn’t have anything else.” Her problems were exacerbated by complications with their SNAP benefits, which she was nervous about renewing, because she was afraid to admit to “the government” that she needed help, worrying that doing so could somehow put her status at risk or lead to her partner’s deportation.

At the time of the study, the uncertainty and confusion Claudia and women like her experienced were understandable, especially given wide variation in eligibility for noncitizens across programs like Medicaid, SNAP and WIC. They worried that any misstep or misunderstanding could threaten their immigration status. Under the new rule, their worries will be based on something even more concrete. By refusing legal status to those who can’t afford food or health care and seek help, the rule will further drive immigrant families into the shadows, forcing them to sacrifice their health and security to maintain even a chance of receiving permanent legal status down the road.

And by discouraging immigrants, including those who are legally entitled to benefits, from seeking them, the harsher public-charge rule is at odds with a fundamental truth of the United States: that it is built on immigrant labor and would not exist were it not for the sacrifices and suffering of the people who have landed on its shores tired, poor and hungry.

Sarah Bowen is an associate professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. Sinikka Elliott is an associate professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia. Annie Hardison-Moody is an assistant professor of agricultural and human sciences at North Carolina State.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.