Gave Birth in the US on Tourist Visa

[bettermuscome 12]

Just to add I know two people who have had this same problem...one was turned back and visa cancelled at the POE for being a public charge and the other tried to renew at the embassy and visa was not renewed, it was stated at the interview that visitors are not entitled to aid form US govt. and they should have paid the bill themself

[Dakine10 5,452]

Qualifying for a Visitor Visa

There are specific requirements which must be met by applicants to qualify for a visitor visa under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consular officer at the embassy or consulate will determine whether you qualify for the visa.

The presumption in the law is that every visitor visa applicant is an intending immigrant. Therefore, applicants for visitor visas must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that:

The purpose of their trip is to enter the U.S. for business, pleasure, or medical treatment;

That they plan to remain for a specific, limited period;

Evidence of funds to cover expenses in the United States;

Evidence of compelling social and economic ties abroad; and

That they have a residence outside the U.S. as well as other binding ties that will insure their return abroad at the end of the visit.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html#3

Yes, nothing I posted contradicts that. Past use of emergency medicaid is not considered specifically because it is emergency medicaid. You can't be a habitual emergency medicaid user. The links I posted are correct.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Just to add I know two people who have had this same problem...one was turned back and visa cancelled at the POE for being a public charge and the other tried to renew at the embassy and visa was not renewed, it was stated at the interview that visitors are not entitled to aid form US govt. and they should have paid the bill themself

Being (or having been) a public charge definitely makes one inadmissable.

What I (and others) have posted is that the person in question is not considered a public charge. Emergency medicaid is distinctly different from regular medicaid in that it is not means tested and is not considered when making the public charge determination.

I'm not saying the person in question will be admitted, but I am saying they cannot use being a public charge as the reason for being inadmissable.

[bettermuscome 12]

Being (or having been) a public charge definitely makes one inadmissable.

What I (and others) have posted is that the person in question is not considered a public charge. Emergency medicaid is distinctly different from regular medicaid in that it is not means tested and is not considered when making the public charge determination.

I'm not saying the person in question will be admitted, but I am saying they cannot use being a public charge as the reason for being inadmissable.

well public charge is exactly what was quoted also written on the visa

[Dakine10 5,452]

well public charge is exactly what was quoted also written on the visa

I only know one case first hand, but I know the person pretty well, and she had no problems with subsequent non-immigrant admissions or with immigration later on.

If your 2 friends were public charges, I suspect they used more than just emergency medicaid.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Dakine10

[Boiler 46,022]

From Canada?

[Dakine10 5,452]

From Canada?

Yes. So just POE questions, not a visa, but same rules for admissibility.

There are a lot of factors that they use to determine if someone could become a public charge. I don't doubt that country of origin plays a part in it. By the time she visited with her son she was making way too much money to have to worry about being considered a public charge, but I don't really know the specifics (of the admission) as it never really came up.

[LIFE'SJOURNEY 970]

Did you say Canada??? Well that just explains everything.... Call me stupid....

Well it seems they have different rules when it applies to Mexico, Caribbean or any other 3rd world country. I keep forgetting we are talking about the US.

[bettermuscome 12]

no they didn't do anything else all they did was have a baby and let the US govt. pay for it, in my post i said the embassy may or may not bring this issue up since on the visa application u gotta disclose the status of relatives......the one denied at the POE was travelling with her son and they asked how come the baby was a US citizen she explained then she was asked who paid for the birth and that was that she was sent back.

Yes. So just POE questions, not a visa, but same rules for admissibility.

There are a lot of factors that they use to determine if someone could become a public charge. I don't doubt that country of origin plays a part in it. By the time she visited with her son she was making way too much money to have to worry about being considered a public charge, but I don't really know the specifics (of the admission) as it never really came up.

did she make POE with her son? if not, was she questioned about her son?

[Dakine10 5,452]

no they didn't do anything else all they did was have a baby and let the US govt. pay for it, in my post i said the embassy may or may not bring this issue up since on the visa application u gotta disclose the status of relatives......the one denied at the POE was travelling with her son and they asked how come the baby was a US citizen she explained then she was asked who paid for the birth and that was that she was sent back.

did she make POE with her son? if not, was she questioned about her son?

Canadians generally don't get tourist visas so everything so basically done at the POE. As I said she brought her son a few times and I imagine she would have disclose he was a USC but beyond that I don't know what the questions were. She didn't mention anything.

If they deny admission, it's not for being a public charge in the past, it's because they think you might become one on the current admission. Tht INA actually states "is likely to become a public charge at the time of current admission" There are many factors that go into that determination, age,health, family status, economic factors and so forth. A person can be denied on these grounds simply because they don't have enough money to cover the trip.

There is no prior cash or non-cash benefit received that automatically makes one inadmissible. Receipt of those benefits are taken into consideration as part of the overall picture. Emergency medicaid should not be considered at all.

If your friends were asked about government benefits, they should have stated specifically it was emergency medicaid. If not they could have been mistakenly denied. They also would need to more funds to travel with the child than when they travelled before. This could be another factor in the denial.

[Harsh_77 718]

Qualifying for a Visitor Visa

There are specific requirements which must be met by applicants to qualify for a visitor visa under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consular officer at the embassy or consulate will determine whether you qualify for the visa.

The presumption in the law is that every visitor visa applicant is an intending immigrant. Therefore, applicants for visitor visas must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that:

The purpose of their trip is to enter the U.S. for business, pleasure, or medical treatment;

That they plan to remain for a specific, limited period;

Evidence of funds to cover expenses in the United States;

Evidence of compelling social and economic ties abroad; and

That they have a residence outside the U.S. as well as other binding ties that will insure their return abroad at the end of the visit.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html#3

Thanks Boiler - I have tried to explain this over and over in last 2 pages. Ppl traveling on tourist visa are required to have their own medical coverage and medical insurance.

Tourist can use the medical facilities in case of emergency and either pay it from their own pocket or use govt aide and claim the same amount from their medical insurance and then reimburse themself or the agency who paid for medical care.

State or Feds are not responsible for footing their medical bills, unfortunately some ppl are not willing to accept it.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Thanks Boiler - I have tried to explain this over and over in last 2 pages. Ppl traveling on tourist visa are required to have their own medical coverage and medical insurance.

Tourist can use the medical facilities in case of emergency and either pay it from their own pocket or use govt aide and claim the same amount from their medical insurance and then reimburse themself or the agency who paid for medical care.

State or Feds are not responsible for footing their medical bills, unfortunately some ppl are not willing to accept it.

Do you know what emergency medicaid is? Given that anyone can apply for it, and it's not a means tested benefit and it cannot be considered in the totality of circumstances test for determining public charge likelyhood, I don't understand the rationale for your position.

A tourist always has to have enough funds to cover their trip. Generally if you are short on funds and pregnant, they are not going to admit you. The denial rate is very high for someone trying to enter (as a visitor) in the last trimester of pregnancy. Unfortunately, this determination is made prior to entry, not after.

This is copy and paste, but a recent statement by the US Consulate in Paris states:

"While it is clearly legal for a foreign national to give birth in the United States, COs [consular officers] are aware of widespread abuse of the US Medicaid system by pregnant foreign nationals traveling on B1/B2 visas. Pregnant applicants are therefore advised to tell the CO of their intent. This is both an issue of credibility and a control that allows the CO to ensure that the applicant has the means to pay for the birth and has taken appropriate steps to arrange for such payment, including any pre-natal and post-operative care required. The totality of circumstances are taken into account when applicants are pregnant and overall credibility is of primary concern to the CO."

[justashooter 430]

a history of having been a public charge indicates an intent to continue in such manner.

[Dakine10 5,452]

a history of having been a public charge indicates an intent to continue in such manner.

I agree it does, but once again, use of emergency medicaid is not used to determine if someone was a public charge. I know that is counterintuitive, but that's the way it is.