Food Stamps

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I am all for a flat tax. How ever the fundamental flaw in your thinking is that you are equating "allowing me to keep more of my own money that I earned" as being the same exact thing as " Taking my money that I have earned and giving it to someone that did not earn it". At the end of the day I am still paying way more into the system than I am taking out. Trying to equate I am only paying 30,000 in taxes this year instead of 35,000 as being the same net game as someone that is taking 5,000 from the system and giving nothing back is not a very well thought out assumption.

I saw that too, and it immediately made me cringe. A tax credit or deduction is NOT the same thing as a subsidy. The fact that me and millions of other Americans get to deduct the interest we pay on our mortgages doesn't mean somebody else has to pony up more in tax payments to make up for the difference. In an ideal world, the government would spend only what it takes in, and not determine how much it must take in based on how much it thinks it must spend. By that twisted logic, I should be able to claim that anyone who earns less than me is being subsidized by me because I pay more in taxes. That's just ludicrous.

Anyway, there were some other tidbits of information tossed out in this thread that were accurate but misleading. For example, sheeshkabelle posted a couple of times about the official definition of "public charge". It's important to understand where this definition comes into play in regards to the immigration process.

Whether or not a US citizen is a public charge has no effect whatever on their eligibility to submit a petition for a foreign spouse or fiancee. Any means-tested public benefits they receive will not be considered as income for an affidavit of support. At a minimum, they would probably need a joint sponsor. Some consulates rarely accept joint sponsors for K visas.

An immigrant is not eligible for most means-tested public benefits until they've been an LPR for five years. After that, they can apply for and legally receive most public benefits. However, if the immigrant was sponsored with an affidavit of support, and if that affidavit of support is still enforceable, then the sponsor can be forced to reimburse the government for those benefits. As sheeshkabelle noted, receiving temporary benefits would not make the immigrant a public charge, as defined, but that wouldn't change the fact that the sponsor is liable to the government to repay those benefits. What's more, an immigrant will NOT be credited by SSA with having earned a quarter of work credit if the immigrant received any means-tested public benefits in that quarter, which only postpones the day when the affidavit of support will no longer be enforceable. An immigrant who actually becomes a public charge is deportable, and this is precisely why the consulate is charged with determining the likelihood that the immigrant will ever become a public charge.

For the OP: If there's any way you can avoid collecting food stamps and still get by then you should do so. I suggest you read section 9 FAM 40.41 N4.1 of the foreign affairs manual.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

There is no provision in the law to indicate that the receipt of means-tested benefits by the sponsor would, in itself, result in a finding of inadmissibility for the applicant under INA 212(a)(4). The sponsor's reliance on such benefits, however, would clearly be an important factor in considering whether the applicant might have to become a public charge. If the sponsor or any member of his or her household has received public means-tested benefits within the past three years, you must review fully the sponsor's current ability to provide the requisite level of support, taking into consideration the kind of assistance provided and the dates received. You must review carefully Form I-864, Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the Act, or Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, and all attachments submitted with Form I-134, as well as evidence of the sponsor's current financial circumstances, in such cases.

In other words, if you collect food stamps, or any other means-tested public benefits, up to three years before you submit an affidavit of support then the consular officer will look more closely at your financial situation. They have a lot of discretion with an I-134, and they're going to weigh the positive and negative factors. If you collect food stamps then you're adding a little more weight to the negative side.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I saw that too, and it immediately made me cringe. A tax credit or deduction is NOT the same thing as a subsidy. The fact that me and millions of other Americans get to deduct the interest we pay on our mortgages doesn't mean somebody else has to pony up more in tax payments to make up for the difference. In an ideal world, the government would spend only what it takes in, and not determine how much it must take in based on how much it thinks it must spend. By that twisted logic, I should be able to claim that anyone who earns less than me is being subsidized by me because I pay more in taxes. That's just ludicrous.

Anyway, there were some other tidbits of information tossed out in this thread that were accurate but misleading. For example, sheeshkabelle posted a couple of times about the official definition of "public charge". It's important to understand where this definition comes into play in regards to the immigration process.

Whether or not a US citizen is a public charge has no effect whatever on their eligibility to submit a petition for a foreign spouse or fiancee. Any means-tested public benefits they receive will not be considered as income for an affidavit of support. At a minimum, they would probably need a joint sponsor. Some consulates rarely accept joint sponsors for K visas.

An immigrant is not eligible for most means-tested public benefits until they've been an LPR for five years. After that, they can apply for and legally receive most public benefits. However, if the immigrant was sponsored with an affidavit of support, and if that affidavit of support is still enforceable, then the sponsor can be forced to reimburse the government for those benefits. As sheeshkabelle noted, receiving temporary benefits would not make the immigrant a public charge, as defined, but that wouldn't change the fact that the sponsor is liable to the government to repay those benefits. What's more, an immigrant will NOT be credited by SSA with having earned a quarter of work credit if the immigrant received any means-tested public benefits in that quarter, which only postpones the day when the affidavit of support will no longer be enforceable. An immigrant who actually becomes a public charge is deportable, and this is precisely why the consulate is charged with determining the likelihood that the immigrant will ever become a public charge.

For the OP: If there's any way you can avoid collecting food stamps and still get by then you should do so. I suggest you read section 9 FAM 40.41 N4.1 of the foreign affairs manual.

http://www.state.gov...ation/86988.pdf

There is no provision in the law to indicate that the receipt of means-tested benefits by the sponsor would, in itself, result in a finding of inadmissibility for the applicant under INA 212(a)(4). The sponsor's reliance on such benefits, however, would clearly be an important factor in considering whether the applicant might have to become a public charge. If the sponsor or any member of his or her household has received public means-tested benefits within the past three years, you must review fully the sponsor's current ability to provide the requisite level of support, taking into consideration the kind of assistance provided and the dates received. You must review carefully Form I-864, Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the Act, or Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, and all attachments submitted with Form I-134, as well as evidence of the sponsor's current financial circumstances, in such cases.

In other words, if you collect food stamps, or any other means-tested public benefits, up to three years before you submit an affidavit of support then the consular officer will look more closely at your financial situation. They have a lot of discretion with an I-134, and they're going to weigh the positive and negative factors. If you collect food stamps then you're adding a little more weight to the negative side.

]]Ha kept looking for the like button buts its not face book

[Robert&Karen 264]

Who the hell are you to pass judgement on me?

If you do go on food stamps, then I am the guy FEEDING you. My kids don't work, they do not get allowance, they cannot buy candies. I cannot feel sorry for a person who can at least sell their computer to eat.

However you clarified that you are NOT on food stamps...yet. That's good. If you can keep it that way, fantastic. If you have to get them, well that sucks, it's never fun, but like I said, do not expect anyone to comfort you trying to start a family if you cannot care for yourself.

Oh and when I was on food stamps? ONE month was all I ever got. Less than $150. And it was me and only me.

I'd NEVER start a family I could not afford. But that's just me.

[ecirnala 9]

You mean to tell me that it took you almost a week to come up with that? Really? Why did u even bother? It has already been made pretty clear what my plan is & your entire comment is irrelevant.

[Robert&Karen 264]

You mean to tell me that it took you almost a week to come up with that? Really? Why did u even bother? It has already been made pretty clear what my plan is & your entire comment is irrelevant.

I was offline, getting married, signing my family up for insurance, shopping for furniture with them, and have more to do than try to convince a person why they should not go on the dole. I'll never change your attitude, I was only pointing it out.

By the way, plans? Plans are ideas with no motion. E-mail me again when you have actually DONE something.

[ecirnala 9]

Ok ok, I'll let you have the last word. It's pretty obvious that your self esteem is hinged on it & we would all hate for you to be upset now wouldn't we.