Watch what benefits you use.

[JohnL 4]

Watch what benefits you use.  USCIS plans to change their definition of a public charge.  This can affect you even if your US born children go to Head Start, you claim the Earned Income Tax Credit when you file your taxes, or you get your health insurance thru an exchange and get a tax credit.  

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/8/16993172/trump-regulation-immigrants-benefits-public-charge

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

28 minutes ago, JohnL said:

Watch what benefits you use.  USCIS plans to change their definition of a public charge.  This can affect you even if your US born children go to Head Start, you claim the Earned Income Tax Credit when you file your taxes, or you get your health insurance thru an exchange and get a tax credit.  

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/8/16993172/trump-regulation-immigrants-benefits-public-charge

Really, do you have a more reputable site other than vox?

[JohnL 4]

How about the Washington Post?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-proposal-would-penalize-immigrants-who-use-tax-credits-and-other-benefits/2018/03/28/4c6392e0-2924-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.0ddbfa7e1dec

[JohnL 4]

Or the Mercury News

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/28/trump-proposal-would-penalize-immigrants-who-use-tax-credits-benefits/

[JohnL 4]

Or the Kaiser Family Foundation

https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for-immigrants-implications-for-health-coverage/

[Hypnos 6,576]

This change has not yet been made. 

 

I would expect to see lawsuits filed over it if it were to proceed. 

[Ischnura 285]

Quote

The changes would apply to those seeking immigration visas or legal permanent residency, such as a foreigner with an expiring work visa. While they would make little difference to those living here illegally, it could affect immigrants protected by the ­Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — whose termination has been blocked by federal courts — if they attempt to file for full legal residency

 I don't get the impression that it would affect those with current LPR status only those planning to apply for it at some point, be it from working here and filing taxes to whomever else has a temporary right to be here. I also read last night that it would take several years to implement if approved, by that time the DACA issue should have been long resolved and if you're here illegally then you pretty much shouldn't be entitled to EIC or help with funding your health care, in my opinion.

 

EDIT: Hubby and I went to amend prior tax returns, I've been here 5 years and we have 1 child, and the tax adviser we saw literally said that they changed the laws on allowing amended returns to include EIC or the child tax credit to prevent those people that had been working here illegally, who have suddenly amended their legal status, to bring their taxes up to date and claim the tax credits from previous years. For someone with 3 years worth of taxes to amend, all that income to report and 5 kids to add that's a giant chunk of change they were never entitled to. Just sucks that those of us going by the legal book lose out when we amend. 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Ischnura

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

11 hours ago, Hypnos said:

This change has not yet been made. 

 

I would expect to see lawsuits filed over it if it were to proceed. 

I would expect to see lawsuits about anything the Trump administration is doing because people are trying to do a outright war against them. Oh yeah they are already doing that.

12 hours ago, JohnL said:

How about the Washington Post?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-proposal-would-penalize-immigrants-who-use-tax-credits-and-other-benefits/2018/03/28/4c6392e0-2924-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.0ddbfa7e1dec

Thank you I will read it.

[yuna628 9,676]

2 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

I would expect to see lawsuits about anything the Trump administration is doing because people are trying to do a outright war against them. Oh yeah they are already doing that.

Thank you I will read it.

I put a thread in CEHST about this yesterday as a follow-up to a previous thread discussing this topic. The Vox version was just a snapshot, the WaPo version is the document in full. A source I trust believes it's all pretty much a done deal, and officers are furious about it. The concern to me is just how far reaching into civil liberties for American citizens it is. It is one thing to restrict access to an immigrant, but quite another to restrict access to a USC. There are other major privacy invasions that would involve credit history and medical issues...  but beyond that - this policy change is done without any congressional oversight. The law states an immigrant has access to these things, but this DHS policy change will say the immigrant and their USC families will be penalized or restricted under threat of removal.... but the laws stating they have a right to access will not change.

 

Furthermore, where I think there can be the greatest legal challenge, is that it will effectively force an immigrant and their USC families to purchase health insurance. We've been down that rabbit hole before, with SCOTUS. A government cannot compel a person to obtain health insurance against their will. It is of course a no brainer to me, of course I purchased my husband health insurance - but it is still a person's right to not do it by law... and the rights of citizens and LPRs to obtain services by law that they qualify for. This policy flies in the face of that. Most of what is mentioned in the new policy refers to new immigrants and those AOSing. There's no mention (at least that I could determine.. perhaps you can find somewhere) of someone ROCing or applying for citizenship - but it does give me pause. To me it's not lawsuits that will be filed out of dislike for this administration, it's lawsuits that must happen in order to keep the government in check when they over-reach. This policy is over-reaching.

 

Today everyone is in a flap over the government asking five years of social media history on a DS160... but little attention is being given to this policy which has huge implications for thousands. Reading a 200+ page document is a lot to get through, and Americans remain ignorant of our own policies.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

I put a thread in CEHST about this yesterday as a follow-up to a previous thread discussing this topic. The Vox version was just a snapshot, the WaPo version is the document in full. A source I trust believes it's all pretty much a done deal, and officers are furious about it. The concern to me is just how far reaching into civil liberties for American citizens it is. It is one thing to restrict access to an immigrant, but quite another to restrict access to a USC. There are other major privacy invasions that would involve credit history and medical issues...  but beyond that - this policy change is done without any congressional oversight. The law states an immigrant has access to these things, but this DHS policy change will say the immigrant and their USC families will be penalized or restricted under threat of removal.... but the laws stating they have a right to access will not change.

 

Furthermore, where I think there can be the greatest legal challenge, is that it will effectively force an immigrant and their USC families to purchase health insurance. We've been down that rabbit hole before, with SCOTUS. A government cannot compel a person to obtain health insurance against their will. It is of course a no brainer to me, of course I purchased my husband health insurance - but it is still a person's right to not do it by law... and the rights of citizens and LPRs to obtain services by law that they qualify for. This policy flies in the face of that. Most of what is mentioned in the new policy refers to new immigrants and those AOSing. There's no mention (at least that I could determine.. perhaps you can find somewhere) of someone ROCing or applying for citizenship - but it does give me pause. To me it's not lawsuits that will be filed out of dislike for this administration, it's lawsuits that must happen in order to keep the government in check when they over-reach. This policy is over-reaching.

 

Today everyone is in a flap over the government asking five years of social media history on a DS160... but little attention is being given to this policy which has huge implications for thousands. Reading a 200+ page document is a lot to get through, and Americans remain ignorant of our own policies.

You know me as we have conversed quite a few times in the past. If you have an obviously biased news site story I will read but not believe it until I have a couple different places basically saying the same thing or around the same general lines. So I was happy that he came back with a couple different sites to back it up. Like I said I will read it on lunch time. But it is always nice to be able to back up your claims/stories with several different references.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

There's no mention (at least that I could determine.. perhaps you can find somewhere) of someone ROCing or applying for citizenship - but it does give me pause. 

 

This makes me nervous as well, especially with our current processing times for naturalization.

 

This is not going to end well for a lot of people who will just chance it without insurance or benefits to which their USC children are entitled.

 

 

 

[AdnanS 82]

16 minutes ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

This makes me nervous as well, especially with our current processing times for naturalization.

 

This is not going to end well for a lot of people who will just chance it without insurance or benefits to which their USC children are entitled.

 

 

 

 

That to but the other problem is they could go back 36 months - when ETIC was legal and was used now you will be penalized.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

6 minutes ago, AdnanS said:

 

That to but the other problem is they could go back 36 months - when ETIC was legal and was used now you will be penalized.

 

Well, yeah, I mean we've all been getting subsidized health insurance and EITC for almost 5 years.  We're screwed if this messes with naturalization and we simply can't chance of a family of 5 without insurance for years, nor can we afford it OOP premiums.  For goodness sake, government workers, teachers, and pretty much everyone where we live qualifies for subsidized insurance for themselves and medicaid for their kids unless their job provides insurance.

 

This is what happens when you elect people born into wealth who have no clue that there are millions of working families who don't get benefits at their jobs.

[AdnanS 82]

1 minute ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

Well, yeah, I mean we've all been getting subsidized health insurance and EITC for almost 5 years.  We're screwed if this messes with naturalization and we simply can't chance of a family of 5 without insurance for years, nor can we afford it OOP premiums.  For goodness sake, government workers, teachers, and pretty much everyone where we live qualifies for subsidized insurance for themselves and medicaid for their kids unless their job provides insurance.

 

This is what happens when you elect people born into wealth who have no clue that there are millions of working families who don't get benefits at their jobs.

 

Not just into wealth but one who's mentally autistc along with his family.

 

I just hope lawsuits pile on to prevent and suspend this #######.

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

Although, upon reading it more, it is starting to sound like Danish immigration policy.