Watch what benefits you use.

[azblk 338]

14 minutes ago, Balamban said:

Uh, hmm...  I bring my fiancee to America.  I agree that I will support her and that she will not become a public charge.  Seems fair to me.  Head Start is for those who live in poverty and I said: that will not happen with my fiancee and I am happily bound to it.

 

I predict that my fiancee, in less than 1 year will be making over poverty rate on her own.  I predict that it's likely that in five year's she'll be making > $40,000.

 

She's always wanted to be a nurse.  In America, it's a piece of cake to become CNA/LNA (Certified or licensed Nurrse Assistant).  I know of one recent fiancee immigrant that not makes over $35,000 with only a CNA and no college.  In most states (I'm not sure about all of them, you can take a CNA course for about $1200.  If you pass it, you'll have a job the next day--that is how much CNA's are in demand.  Pass the course and start working and *bingo* get your $1200 back.  If you don't have $1200, why did you bring a fiancee to America?  Besides, there are public services here who would loan it to you---so once again it's free.

 

USnationaldebtclock.org

 

It's great to be a provider to "the children."  It's great to give money out hand over fist in all directions, not just human services.  But look at that image!  That is real.  When you come to America and become a citizen YOU inherit that $64,000 debt.  The actual debt that a "working person" now carries is $173,550.  That is REAL folk.  Could you get a credit card, max it out at $10,000, then get two more to pay the interest on that $10,000 and spend the rest so now you have $30,000 in debt, so you get 4 new credit cards...on and on.  Does one single person here actually think that America's Ponzi finance system could possibly last forever?  It's not just America either.  We are in the biggest "bubble" in history. 

 

 

Who here pays even annually 10% of that "debt per taxpayer" which is $17,000/year if ALL of it was used to reduce USA debt?

 

The reality is: There is NO Free Ride--each ride pays, even if it means that the debt is passed on to your children and their children.

 

I know one person who came to America with intent to create an anchor baby.  And she did just that.  It's so sweet to say: "it for the children," but eventually someone must pay the piper.

 

And don't think that for one minute I'm some high and mighty income earner!  My income right now is zero/week.  I'm unemployed and ran out of unemployment benefits.  America is the land of opportunity if you work for it.  There is opportunity everywhere for everyone who is willing to pull back that palm-up "gimmee" hand and look for it.

 

The world is tight and getting tighter.  I say: Get used to it and get smart and get to work.

 

If you need to know about a CNA program message me with your state and I'll try to find you info.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am not sure I see your point if there is any that you are making.  I dont see anyone arguing against i-864 and its responsibilities but against the expansion of public charge to include benefits to American citizens who are entitled to these benefits anyway.  If you want to argue about the national debt start a new topic and correctly assign the it to what is keeping it climbing.

[azblk 338]

15 minutes ago, Balamban said:

 

The "bond" is not a way out--it's a death sentence and a prelude to kick a person who needs it out of the country.  It's brutal--there's no other word for it.  It's a knee-jerk reaction but it's cause originates in the massive size (and ever increasing) debt.

You are correct but this is not about the national debt. This is about immigration numbers and the Trump administrations desire to reduce the number of LEGAL immigrants anyway it can. If they care about the debt they would not do massive tax cuts and yet increase spending at the same time. You can not decrease your income while increasing your spending and not expect the debt to grow.   The debt is just a tool Republicans use to rile their base when out of power but never pay any attention to when in power.

[Balamban 113]

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

 

My immigrant spouse was earning over 40k sooner than that and he has a 10th grade education.

 

However, in my state, a family our size can get medicaid for our children with a household income over 80k/year and then adding 11k per household member beyond that.  You are not eligible for subsidies or the state subsidized insurance if you are eligible for a lower level of program, like medicaid.

 

I personally don't feel that we are poor, but yes, working class for sure.  We pay all of our bills, we own a house, but we just can't afford health insurance.    That is a struggle many Americans face.  I vote for politicians who want to fix our broken healthcare system and beyond that, we are at the whims of whatever over-priced standards they set for healthcare.  

 

Well said Nola, and I agree with every point you make.  Our medical system is a mess.  I just bought 90 tablets of a med that I use which would cost me over $900 at ANY pharmacy in America.  My total cost is $46 shipped to me from Singapore.  The ironic part is that I know for a fact that one single factory in America makes ALL the feedstock for that med on the planet, therefore, the pharmacy is paying less that $46 so we are looking at a 20x mark up.

 

Even worse: If I who has insurance goes to have a broken arm set and put in a cast let's say at hospital ED "x" I'll pay $200 and the insurance will pay the "contract price" of $800 for that visit.  You, on the other hand, will likely pay the "un-contracted" price of $1800.  Is that fair? NO. 

 

All this is, I fear, an ongoing wake-up call.  When I was young (1950's) America was the Holy Grail, it's streets were paved with gold and honey poured from every faucet.

 

No more. 

 

I do realize that in parts of the country especially getting insurance for a family is becoming absurd and I wish I could offer you something to help, but when my fiancee comes here, we may be in similar boats.

 

And worst of all:

 

US Health System Ranks Last Among Eleven Countries on Measures of Access, Equity, Quality, Efficiency, and Healthy Lives

 

[yuna628 9,665]

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

From what I saw (and somebody correct me if I missed it), this only applies when applying for an immigration benefit where they will consider the risk of the applicant becoming a public charge. Naturalization does not have this requirement. Obtaining permanent residency does have this requirement, but there's a number of ways around it that the vast majority of people can likely utilize (see my post above).

That's the way I'm understanding it too. However, do you think it will eventually apply to these categories as well as it presents an officer with an even more broad discretionary power and almost gives them an endless supply of potential reasons to deny?

 

1) it is a policy change, meanwhile the laws addressing what benefits and tax credits an immigrant can and cannot receive will not change.

2) it penalizes the immigrant for benefits a USC may lawfully use.

3) there is little difference between using a plan on the exchange and using a plan off of it. the vast majority do not receive a subsidy, and it is not 100% clear to me if the mere use of the exchange without a subsidy will also be seen as a negative.

4) it will require the USC and the foreign spouse to obtain health insurance not on the exchange and to maintain it, which according to SCOTUS is unconstitutional. they cannot be this stupid can they? do they really think no one is going to challenge this?

5) will involve exploring credit history. many things that are not a person's fault may effect such a rating... and certainly most new immigrants AOSing won't be having a score that's very high.

6) will consider an immigrant's health history in ways that previously would not have been considered a potential negative factor.

 

All of the things they seek to restrict are available to tax paying and lawful citizens and PRs. It is one thing to be cheating the system, but quite another to be a lower or working class family obeying the law but still being penalized.

[doggieandsam 765]

2 hours ago, dawning said:

Seems hard to argue that denying immigration benefits to otherwise eligible parents of USC children based on children receiving benefits will help much of anyone... the kids are already USCs and are more likely to need some kind of public assistance if their parents remain in limbo states or get deported. 

I wonder if this might be partly directed at asylum recipients?

this kind of occurred to me, not asylum but DACA.

[geowrian 22,337]

10 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

That's the way I'm understanding it too. However, do you think it will eventually apply to these categories as well as it presents an officer with an even more broad discretionary power and almost gives them an endless supply of potential reasons to deny?

I don't think this will extend to ROC or naturalization applications...the requirements for those are set by law and implemented/clarified in policy. Unless something involving public change risk is written into law, I can't foresee a policy being implemented to consider it. Not that they can't try...but I think the BIA would strike down any such attempt.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

4 hours ago, AdnanS said:

 

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 #######.

While I agree that Trump is mentally unfit to be president, let's not insult autistic people. Plus, Trump looks more like a narcissist anyway. 

[Hypnos 6,576]

3 hours ago, geowrian said:

I think the BIA would strike down any such attempt.

The US attorney-general, currently Jefferson Sessions, has the power to put aside any BIA decisions with which he disagrees. This is because immigration courts are not independent but are technically part of the Department of Justice, which he personally leads.

 

He did this very recently in an asylum-related case, and it went almost unnoticed:

 

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/12/592823598/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-reshapes-who-qualifies-for-asylum

Edited March 30, 2018 by Hypnos

[AdnanS 82]

Guys I read through half of this changes being proposed, below is the link to the proposal.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4413837/Read-the-Trump-administration-s-draft-proposal.pdf

 

From my understanding they are mostly targeting people who are seeking the following nonimmigrant immigration visas, adjust of status applications those seeking extension of stay or change of status. I believe they are restricting foreign workers and their families - but still my wife and I cancelled our health insurance and told accountant to remove any ETIC from returns before filing I don't want to take chance with this cheeto Jesus in the WH.

 

Note: I could be wrong they can possibly target ROC and others? Not to sure so don't take my word on that.

Edited March 31, 2018 by TBoneTX
profanity removed

[DaveNot 55]

So, based on this I have something to worry about now that I could potentially be denied my ROC or n400 when eligible in turn being asked to leave the USA. I married into a family with kids and filed taxes jointly and we were entitled to the earned income tax credits. Also, the Obama care. I took great care to avoid anything that was considered public charge until we got on our feet. Suddenly I feel I can de deported to claiming something we were okay to claim in the past. Things are better now, but that doesn't shake the whole two year thing. Am I right to be worried what would you be doing?

[geowrian 22,337]

I can't find anything in this involves ROC or naturalization. Can somebody point me to that? It only refers to public charge concerns, which is not a factor for ROC or naturalization.

 

Good Moral Character (GMC) applies for naturalization, but that is only a factor when somebody obtains a public benefit for which they were not qualified. These changes don't affect the qualifications to obtain those benefits, only how usage of them can be considered for public charge concerns.

Edited March 31, 2018 by geowrian

[Hypnos 6,576]

I suspect there exist strong grounds for challenging the potential new policy under the 14th Amendment, since it seeks to punish potential immigrants for the acts of family members (say your US citizen spouse or children receiving CHIP or Obamacare subsidies, for example). 

 

It helps that Trump and his cohorts are not the smartest, and this is one of the reasons they have been continually hobbled in federal court over his entire administration to date, over DACA, over the Muslim ban, and in several other prominent policy areas. 

 

These changes, even if introduced as proposed (i) would not come into effect immediately, but would be promulgated at some point months or perhaps a year or so down the line; and (ii) are virtually guaranteed to be challenged in federal court during that intervening period. 

 

So on paper, yes it doesn't look good, but the sky isn't falling just yet. The courts have acted as the best check on Trump to date (because god knows this Republican Congress aren't willing to do any actual oversight, as mandated by the Constitution), and this will only continue. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Hypnos

[AdnanS 82]

7 hours ago, DaveNot said:

So, based on this I have something to worry about now that I could potentially be denied my ROC or n400 when eligible in turn being asked to leave the USA. I married into a family with kids and filed taxes jointly and we were entitled to the earned income tax credits. Also, the Obama care. I took great care to avoid anything that was considered public charge until we got on our feet. Suddenly I feel I can de deported to claiming something we were okay to claim in the past. Things are better now, but that doesn't shake the whole two year thing. Am I right to be worried what would you be doing?

 

Well, from my inital understanding I think we are ok, (I'm no legal expert) below on page 130 is what I found as to who they will be targeting. I'm trying to get through the whole report but running my insurance agency, I don't have that much time, plus it's a boring read.

 

Page 130:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4413837/Read-the-Trump-administration-s-draft-proposal.pdf

 

"Currently, the public charge inadmissibility ground does not apply to all applicants seeking a visa, admission, or adjustment of status. Several immigrant and nonimmigrant categories, by law or regulation, are exempt from the public charge ground of inadmissibility grounds.. 308

 

The costs and benefits for this proposed rule focuses on individuals applying for adjustment of status using Form I-485. Such individuals would be applying from within the United States, rather than applying for admission from outside the United States through consular processing at a DOS consulate abroad. In addition, nonimmigrant workers who are seeking an extension of stay or a change of status are also examined in this analysis."

 

What I take from this is those of us who married using I-130 and I-129(f) are not going to be penalized because we will not be adjusting status but removing conditions and if you read further down the page it says those people who are adjusting status using I-485 who are the intended targets will be required to file Joint Sponsor Form or the 864 or affidavit of support - and during this time will be determined if they are considered a public charge or not.

 

Also, I personally believe this will be challenged in Federal Court(s) because lots of what they are trying to implement conflicts with current law written in the books.

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by AdnanS

[payxibka 10,045]

3 minutes ago, AdnanS said:

 

 

What I take from this is those of us who married using I-130 and I-129(f) are not going to be penalized because we will not be adjusting status but removing conditions and if you read further down the page it says those people who are adjusting status using I-485 who are the intended targets will be required to file Joint Sponsor Form or the 864 or affidavit of support - and during this time will be determined if they are considered a public charge or not.

 

 

You don't realize that the I-129(f) (K-1) adjusts status using the I-485 ?

[AdnanS 82]

29 minutes ago, payxibka said:

You don't realize that the I-129(f) (K-1) adjusts status using the I-485 ?

 

On Page 12:

 

"In addition, the proposed rule would potentially impose new costs on the population seeking extension of stay or change of status using Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) or the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539)."

 

In the report it didn't mention I-129(f)(K-1) but only Nonimmigrant Worker I-129, I did a search on the rest and wording and nothing came up.

 

Remember the Orange One campaigned on H-1B Workers coming to U.S. and stealing jobs, he's fulfilling a campaign promise to target these individuals.

 

Also remember some immigrantion classes are protected by federal law on the basis of family reunification per Immigration and Nationality Act as long we show proof of having income 125% above the poverty line or Joint Sponsor.

 

Below is an example where a judge blocked the adminstrations efforts preventing families reuniting and these were refugees. Got this off Wikipedia.

 

On December 23, 2017, James Robart, a Senior US District Judge, granted a nationwide injunction that blocks the administration’s restrictions on the process of reuniting refugee families and has partially lifted a ban on refugees from 11 mostly Muslim countries

 

Note: I'm not a lawyer.

 

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by AdnanS