Watch what benefits you use.

[azblk 338]

12 hours ago, Hypnos said:

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. 

The thing is most  AOS cases are done at the discretion of the USCIS and not by law.  The most important factor to receive positive  discretion is eligibility and that is what the are targeting making poor or low income Americans and/or immigrants ineligible. I can generally predict that instead of stopping people it is just going to generate a industry of shy-locks lending money to the desperate immigrants to use for the bond and collecting a monthly payment  for those 24 months the government has their money.

[yuna628 9,676]

From the way I'm reading it and understanding it, it should likely affect anyone attempting to enter on a visa. I-129F is classed as a non immigrant visa but holds dual immigrant intent. It generally requires a I-134 as an affidavit, however some countries do use the I-864 affidavit. Once arrived they would adjust status and use the I-864 of which this policy change heavily discusses. I a lot of my time is sucked up this week because of 'civic duties' but I'll try and see if I can find any relevant wording... but the way I see it, it'll effect anyone that utilizes entry on a visa where examination of public charge is required and then is required to do adjustment of status for the same public charge determination. Spousal visas, don't have to adjust, but do have to use an affidavit. The document mentions USC spouses and children frequently, so I do feel this would affect marriage and fiancé (+adjustment) based visas, or those who entered and adjusted status from another type of visa or VWP. ROC and naturalization do not undergo a public charge review, but I do wonder if officers will be pushed into doing such in the future. This administration is pushing the boundaries of law, and as such rightly deserve to be checked from over-reach.

 

18 hours ago, Hypnos said:

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. 

Absolutely grounds to challenge this. The thing is, I just don't get why go through all this to waste time and taxpayer money. They are going to gain very little from attempting this but heartache for immigrants and a fight in court which I strongly believe they will not win. They do have lawyers advising them about legality right? From what backwater did they hire them from?

[AdnanS 82]

Quote

 

"III. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

 

A. Self-Sufficiency

 

DHS seeks to ensure that aliens who are subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground and who are admitted to the United States or who adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident are self-sufficient. Under section 212(a)(4) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), any alien is inadmissible if at the time of an application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. Aliens subject to public charge inadmissibility include: immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, fiancé(e)s, family-preference immigrants, most employmentbased immigrants, diversity visa immigrants, and certain nonimmigrants. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, fiancé(e)s, most family-preference immigrants, and some 17 employment-based immigrants require a sponsor and a legally binding affidavit of support under section 213A of the INA showing that these sponsored immigrants have adequate means of financial support and are not likely to become a public charge."

 

 

Above is from the report, from my understanding going back and reading more, all classes of immigration that requires a sponsor will be affected, most likely during the process where you submit 864 - showing financial responsibility, where they will determine if you would end up being a public charge or not. This is usually the step before you are granded lawful permanent residence (LPR). Basically, they are making it very challenging for those low/mid-income American's to sponsor their families and spouses. But further reading those who adjust status being in the U.S. are more of a target versus being married overseas and bring spouse here you really can't show Health Insurance, etc.

 

Those who already have a Green Card or going through ROC, etc, don't have to show that form - because their status was already adjusted before coming to U.S. under 130, etc. But those with 129(f) I think it will impact them significantly. 

 

I think for more breath of this change we will have to wait until the offical release and some legal experts weigh their opinoins.

[TBoneTX 45,284]

A purely political comment, more appropriate for the Current Events forum, has been removed.  Please continue discussion of the objective issue as dispassionately as possible.

[geowrian 22,337]

6 hours ago, yuna628 said:

From the way I'm reading it and understanding it, it should likely affect anyone attempting to enter on a visa. I-129F is classed as a non immigrant visa but holds dual immigrant intent. It generally requires a I-134 as an affidavit, however some countries do use the I-864 affidavit.

Some countries follow the I-864 requirements, but none can require the actual I-864 by both DOS policy and law (INA).

The I-864 is a legal contract that is executed when the intending immigrant becomes a lawful permanent resident based upon the I-864 that the sponsor signed. A K-1 applicant cannot become a lawful permanent resident based upon that I-864 (they would become one via the I-864 signed for AOS).

 

6 hours ago, yuna628 said:

VWP. ROC and naturalization do not undergo a public charge review, but I do wonder if officers will be pushed into doing such in the future. This administration is pushing the boundaries of law, and as such rightly deserve to be checked from over-reach.

Unless the law changes, I can't foresee this happening. Policy changes can do a lot (like define/clarify existing requirements), but not just add requirements.

The administration can certainly try something - the "only" penalty they face is a waste of taxpayer money - but it wouldn't have any legal basis.

 

6 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Absolutely grounds to challenge this. The thing is, I just don't get why go through all this to waste time and taxpayer money. They are going to gain very little from attempting this but heartache for immigrants and a fight in court which I strongly believe they will not win. They do have lawyers advising them about legality right? From what backwater did they hire them from?

Bingo.

 

4 hours ago, AdnanS said:

Above is from the report, from my understanding going back and reading more, all classes of immigration that requires a sponsor will be affected, most likely during the process where you submit 864 - showing financial responsibility, where they will determine if you would end up being a public charge or not.

My reading is that it affects all classes of immigrants where they must determine if there is a public charge risk, not just those requiring a sponsor (this is usually the same but not always).

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Change has not been made, and obviously it would apply only to new immigration visa or AOS applicants.

[MsVi2 50]

I loved reading through this thread, I've been discussing this very subject with a few others and we simply can't understand why they would think that such a policy change won't be challenged when it technically over reaches into the rights of a US citizen by proxy.  I know that this policy change won't affect me personally, since I was reading that the same exemptions that are in place now will continue to remain in place, but the kind of individual rights they are ignoring is deeply worrying. 
 

From what I've read, making a decision that the immigrant won't be a public charge should not ever be based on the activity, benefits, or actions of another person, regardless of how they are related.  You begin to do that and you start getting into the murky territory of punishing an individual for the actions of another individual and that's opening a giant can of legal worms.

 

I also did read that a large majority of employees themselves are not in favor of the proposed changes, citing that the morale has already declined with the current administration on top of the proposed new department of oversight that is meant to make sure employees themselves are not being too lenient/forgiving.  It's heartbreaking to read honestly. 

[Jenny17655 284]

On 3/30/2018 at 1:13 PM, geowrian said:

Yes, it does sound like this will hit poor families the worst. I didn't try to imply that it would have no effect...it will (if it goes into effect and holds up in court) affect some families....mostly those who are already struggling.

 

Since I can't edit my prior post, I forgot to add one item:

Note the difference between a public charge risk vs enforcement of the I-864. Using said services for which you are legally qualified will not impact the I-864 sponsor(s) or your existing status (in terms of repayment). The proposed rules only apply when a CO or IO is assessing your public charge risk for the sake of obtaining a benefit. Once somebody has a green card, their public charge risk is not considered (unless, as noted above, the person petitions another immigrant).

So you know my story already.  I'm on the poor side.  Well technically not because I do not qualify for Medicaid, cash assistance section 8 housing etc.  My kids do get health insurance through Child Health Plus and I get low cost health insurance through NYS Essential Plan.  I made well over the income requirements for my household size and was required through the embassy to obtain a co sponsor for my fiancee's K1 visa.  So what this is telling me is that he can come in and marry me but he most likely won't be able to stay.  We will be filing AOS in October.  Again I ask why make sponsorship eligibility at 125% FPL??? I really thought my stress and anxiety would dissipate after his K1 was approved.  Now I will admit my credit score is a bit messed up right now.  I went into a bit of debt throughout this process and the embassy saw that because I could see they pulled my credit in the visa packet they delivered to my fiance but they still let him in. And after a bankruptcy 7 plus years ago and 2 years of being a single parent I have still never qualified for the benefits that would be considered public charge.  I maintain a full time and part time job and I'm sure I will turn my current situation around.  I'm hoping his EAD is approved and he can start working and contributing to the household and economy before the gov't deems he MAY become a public charge POSSIBLY sometime but who really knows. SMH

[Jenny17655 284]

On 4/2/2018 at 6:04 PM, Italian_in_NYC said:

Change has not been made, and obviously it would apply only to new immigration visa or AOS applicants.

there are plenty of us! It's not fair to us either

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Jenny17655

[geowrian 22,337]

7 hours ago, Jenny17655 said:

Again I ask why make sponsorship eligibility at 125% FPL???

I'm all for raising it, actually...very few people can actually live at 125% of the FPL without government assistance. It's incredibly difficult. But that's what is written into law/policy as a minimum for consideration, so that's what they are required to go by until they decide to change it.

 

It does makes some sense in some sort, though...125% of the FPL in my area is difficult but possible to live on. We live in a very low cost of living area. 125% of the FPL in NYC is basically unlivable without government aid.

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

55 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I'm all for raising it, actually...very few people can actually live at 125% of the FPL without government assistance. It's incredibly difficult. But that's what is written into law/policy as a minimum for consideration, so that's what they are required to go by until they decide to change it.

 

It does makes some sense in some sort, though...125% of the FPL in my area is difficult but possible to live on. We live in a very low cost of living area. 125% of the FPL in NYC is basically unlivable without government aid.

 

I mean besides health insurance, we could definitely live on 125% FPL here in the upper Midwest.   We have too and maintained a house and two cars.   People in my town buy houses with incomes like that.  Once you take into account the possible second income, I'd bet most people wouldn't be eligible for any sort of assistance.  We wouldn't, even for our state's very generous healthcare programs.

 

Personally, I think a bigger issue is people living on disability/social security or needing joint sponsors.

 

 

[bariki 71]

This proposed rule change has now been published on the USCIS site. There are a lot of exemptions and qualifying criteria with this proposed rule - please check the Q&A section to see if you are affected.

 

Proposed Change to Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility

 

The following factors would generally weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is likely to become a public charge:

• The alien is not a full-time student and is authorized to work, but is unable to demonstrate current employment, and has no employment history or no reasonable prospect of future employment;
• The alien is currently receiving or is currently certified or approved to receive one or more of the designated public benefits above the threshold;
• The alien has received one or more of the designated public benefits above the threshold within the 36 months immediately preceding the alien’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status;
• The alien has been diagnosed with a medical condition that is likely to require extensive medical treatment or institutionalization or that will interfere with the alien’s ability to provide for him- or herself, attend school, or work, and the alien is uninsured and has no prospect of obtaining private health insurance; or
• The alien had previously been found inadmissible or deportable based on public charge.

[geowrian 22,337]

So to summarize a couple more points:

• Applies to those seeking a visa, AOS applicants, and EOS/COS applicants.
• Does NOT apply to ROC or naturalization.
• This is still a proposed rule...it will be published in the Federal Register, then 60 days of public comment, then review of those comments, and then it could become final w/ or w/o changes, or be sent back for changes and review, or not be enacted.
• No restrictions are put on dependents and household members of the alien. So if a child or spouse or similar receives benefits, it would not be treated any differently than it is today.
• Rule does not apply to emergency medical care, disaster relief, school lunch programs, etc.
• 250% of the FPL or higher in income or assets would weigh heavily against a public charge determination, even if one meets the previously-stated criteria.

[bariki 71]

10 minutes ago, geowrian said:

So to summarize a couple more points:

• Applies to those seeking a visa, AOS applicants, and EOS/COS applicants.
• Does NOT apply to ROC or naturalization.
• This is still a proposed rule...it will be published in the Federal Register, then 60 days of public comment, then review of those comments, and then it could become final w/ or w/o changes, or be sent back for changes and review, or not be enacted.
• No restrictions are put on dependents and household members of the alien. So if a child or spouse or similar receives benefits, it would not be treated any differently than it is today.
• Rule does not apply to emergency medical care, disaster relief, school lunch programs, etc.
• 250% of the FPL or higher in income or assets would weigh heavily against a public charge determination, even if one meets the previously-stated criteria.

Right. In short, this looks like ending up far less draconian than the proposals first mooted by the Administration.

[Hypnos 6,576]

Most likely their lawyers got to it and weeded out the worst of it (such as being able to draw conclusions based on any programs used by US citizen household members).

 

They're learning after their travel ban(s) debacle... slowly, but it's happening.