Trump proposal would make it harder for legal immigrants to gain citizenship (merged)

[Camelot13 63]

2 hours ago, nightingalejules said:

However, I hope that if they get their way and change our eligibility for those programs, they will not be able to make it retroactive - so we'd have to go off ACA if we are still LPRs and not citizens, but what we did when we did legally qualify for those programs wouldn't hurt us or our chances for citizenship.

This is what was concerning me about it too. It's one thing to change what qualifies as a public charge and say "From X date on, you can't qualify for this benefit if you're an LPR" and people have time to adjust and still be ok, but if it's retroactive that could affect a lot of us. Hopefully that was a mistake. Having health insurance was a legal requirement for the last few years. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

13 pages deep its thrown  into chest , this should be interesting 😇

Edited August 7, 2018 by Nature Boy Flair

[Ban Hammer 13,508]

4 hours ago, IndigoPhantom said:

Is that so? 

yes, it is so.  if you don't believe me, see what happens when you continue posting like that.

[AdnanS 82]

11 hours ago, CarlHamilton said:

There still won't be a public charge bar to naturalization, that would require an act of Congress.  We're still talking about this part: "When we come here we have to prove that we won't be a public charge."  The proposed changes pertain to what exactly this means.  Reporters are conflating a bunch of very different concepts. 

 

The problem is this for example, Obama Care you can legally use as an LPR, and one day you come and make it illegal and penalize someone out of the blue - unless they put a future date and give time for people to be off it.

 

This will intentionally hurt legal residents who did nothing wrong until this Orange one came along.

[Dave&Kal 26]

There are 2 things bothering me now,;

1- If the definition of "Public charge" changes as the news suggests and if it is retro active, then it means, the same reason that disqualifies or denies your citizenship application can and will be the ground to endanger your green card as well and you will be at the risk of losing your permanent residency as a result !  ( i have read similar case stories)

2- Consider any change of status, for example from certain visa to GC or from GC (green card) to CS ( citizenship) as a door to open your case and put you at judgment! and then the new law could kick in an affect you negatively! until you have not requested the change, nobody is watching your case or determining anything! so you should be OK!

 

based on these understanding ( if they are correct) , i am guessing, if one is on Permanent Green Card ( like myself) which has a 10 year expiry date,  if these new condition are affecting him, it is safe to give up the citizenship application and keep on living on a green card until we are done with trump nightmare hopefully until 3 years later and things might get better after that or simply go for as long as you wish just by renewing it every 10 years ( of course if that is just a card date renewal and nothing more like a new application)  

Edited August 8, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[AdnanS 82]

3 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

There are 2 things bothering me now,;

1- If the definition of "Public charge" changes as the news suggests and if it is retro active, then it means, the same reason that disqualifies or denies your citizenship application can and will be the ground to endanger your green card as well and you will be at the risk of losing your permanent residency as a result !  ( i have read similar case stories)

2- Consider any change of status, for example from certain visa to GC or from GC (green card) to CS ( citizenship) as a door to open your case and put you at judgment! and then the new law could kick in an affect you negatively! until you have not requested the change, nobody is watching your case or determining anything! so you should be OK!

 

based on these understanding ( if they are correct) , i am guessing, if one is on Permanent Green Card ( like myself) which has a 10 year expiry date,  if these new condition are affecting him, it is safe to give up the citizenship application and keep on living on a green card until we are done with trump nightmare hopefully until 3 years later and things might get better after that or simply go for as long as you wish just by renewing it every 10 years ( of course if that is just a card date renewal and nothing more like a new application)  

 

I agree with you it shouldnt be retroactive. Also, if i'm not mistaken the actual document I read awhile back said those who have been on it for 6+ months, etc, and some bond .

[Dave&Kal 26]

4 minutes ago, AdnanS said:

 

I agree with you it shouldnt be retroactive. Also, if i'm not mistaken the actual document I read awhile back said those who have been on it for 6+ months, etc, and some bond .

during Trump era! 1 hour ago is a far far away history! he changes rules tweet by tweet! what you read a while ago is nothing to rely on! we should update by minute these days!

[Hypnos 6,578]

Kept tabs on this topic during the day and I'm glad to see it didn't disappoint, since I got through at least three bags of popcorn reading all this.

 

My two cents:

 

It's a basic tenet of law in America (and much of the western world) that you cannot punish someone in the future for actions that were legal and approved of in the past. Given that Obamacare subsidies, TANF/food stamps, even EIC on your income tax returns (yeah, they're going after this... seriously) have never been subject to public charge concerns, I don't think it's possible or probably even legal to retroactively punish those people by holding it against them today. Certainly, this administration can, by executive order alone, redefine 'public charge' so that from this point onwards those programs are included, but retroactively to the past? I doubt it. This would be one sure fire way to be able to challenge this policy in the courts.

 

A second way would be how they plan to consider family members' use of these programs, including US citizen relatives, for public charge considerations of the alien. It's yet another central tenet of law that you cannot punish person X for the actions of person Y. This might be an even stronger argument than the one above about how to challenge such a policy, if it were to be enacted.

 

Fortunately, since Drumpf and his administration are largely incompetent, and he has hacks and white-supremacist-adjacent-people like Stephen Miller coordinating policies like this, it's a virtual certainty that this would be challenged in court. At a minimum, it will be delayed for months, perhaps years, until the Supreme Court eventually rules on it. And by then, if sanity returns and a Democratic (big and small d) president is elected in 2020, they could render the whole thing moot by yet again redefining 'public charge' with the stroke of a pen on day 1.

 

And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation. To make them apply to naturalisation would require an act of Congress, and there is zero chance of anything like this getting through the Senate; no Democrat would vote for it. That's largely why Trump's trying to use his executive authority to make this change.

 

Additionally, this policy likely wouldn't apply to pending cases. It would instead take effect on some arbitrary date the administration would choose, and so any case filed on or after that date would be bound by these new rules, and cases filed or pending before that date would be bound by the existing rules.

 

It's just the latest example of anti-immigration policies and rhetoric espoused by Trump and his supporters. As I said, with someone like Stephen Miller at the helm, a man who would cut immigration to zero if it were possible, with the use of this chart as his second choice, it's going to be a constant rut of things like this churning through the news over and over and over again until Trump leaves office. Or is, ahem, made to leave office.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Hypnos

[Dave&Kal 26]

17 minutes ago, Hypnos said:

Kept tabs on this topic during the day and I'm glad to see it didn't disappoint, since I got through at least three bags of popcorn reading all this.

 

My two cents:

 

It's a basic tenet of law in America (and much of the western world) that you cannot punish someone in the future for actions that were legal and approved of in the past. Given that Obamacare subsidies, TANF/food stamps, even EIC on your income tax returns (yeah, they're going after this... seriously) have never been subject to public charge concerns, I don't think it's possible or probably even legal to retroactively punish those people by holding it against them today. Certainly, this administration can, by executive order alone, redefine 'public charge' so that from this point onwards those programs are included, but retroactively to the past? I doubt it. This would be one sure fire way to be able to challenge this policy in the courts.

 

A second way would be how they plan to consider family members' use of these programs, including US citizen relatives, for public charge considerations of the alien. It's yet another central tenet of law that you cannot punish person X for the actions of person Y. This might be an even stronger argument than the one above about how to challenge such a policy, if it were to be enacted.

 

Fortunately, since Drumpf and his administration are largely incompetent, and he has hacks and white-supremacist-adjacent-people like Stephen Miller coordinating policies like this, it's a virtual certainty that this would be challenged in court. At a minimum, it will be delayed for months, perhaps years, until the Supreme Court eventually rules on it. And by then, if sanity returns and a Democratic (big and small d) president is elected in 2020, they could render the whole thing moot by yet again redefining 'public charge' with the stroke of a pen on day 1.

 

And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation. To make them apply to naturalisation would require an act of Congress, and there is zero chance of anything like this getting through the Senate; no Democrat would vote for it. That's largely why Trump's trying to use his executive authority to make this change.

 

Additionally, this policy likely wouldn't apply to pending cases. It would instead take effect on some arbitrary date the administration would choose, and so any case filed on or after that date would be bound by these new rules, and cases filed or pending before that date would be bound by the existing rules.

 

It's just the latest example of anti-immigration policies and rhetoric espoused by Trump and his supporters. As I said, with someone like Stephen Miller at the helm, a man who would cut immigration to zero if it were possible, with the use of this chart as his second choice, it's going to be a constant rut of things like this churning through the news over and over and over again.

Thanks for the input. i find them informative.

 

1- The fact that what law is (you cannot punish someone in the future for actions that were legal and approved of in the past)  and how it works is one thing and how trump thinks should be working is something else! 

2- I was thinking so much about how being retroactive can be problematic that i missed the point you shed some light on ( this policy likely wouldn't apply to pending cases ),  so if that is true, then my last chance would be to apply before it takes into effect ! ( and i cant do it sooner than a month from today! so not sure what happens till then!)

3- you mentioned ( And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation), where does this info come from? the same recent news or any thing older than that?

 

Thanks

 

[Hypnos 6,578]

1 minute ago, Dave&Kal said:

you mentioned ( And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation), where does this info come from? the same recent news or any thing older than that?

The INA. Naturalisation has never been subject to public charge considerations, to my knowledge. And changing that would require an act of Congress.

[Dave&Kal 26]

23 minutes ago, Hypnos said:

The INA. Naturalisation has never been subject to public charge considerations, to my knowledge. And changing that would require an act of Congress.

Thanks.

 

"Naturalisation has never been subject to public charge considerations  And changing that would require an act of Congress" well that is probably why, he is trying executive order to avoid all that hasseles!  When dealing with Trump, you should remember lots of things that used to be the way they were for years and years now seem incorrect and wrong! ( according to the president!)  so simply thinking something has always been so then will remain so, is something we should think twice when Trump is part of the equation! 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[Dave&Kal 26]

Just to reconfirm what you said, here in this link: https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/the-applicability-of-public-charge-rules-to-legal-immigrants-who-are

 

says: "LPRs do not have to meet a public charge test to become citizens, and there is no public charge test for immigrants or U.S. citizens seeking to sponsor an immigrant."

 

but again, this was how it has been so far and the question is if/how is this going to change !

[afrocraft 314]

Ignore if posted earlier, but I thought this was a reasoned discussion of the potential health impacts of this proposed rule:

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1808020

[AdnanS 82]

2 hours ago, Hypnos said:

And to re-iterate what was already said, these changes would apply to AoS and immigrant visas only, not naturalisation.

 

Hypnos

 

Can you point on where in the articles is specifically mentions this and they will not touch naturalization?

 

What about people renewing Green Cards?

Edited August 8, 2018 by AdnanS

[TBoneTX 46,041]

Administrative action has been applied to 2 participant's accounts for violation of these provisions of the site's Terms of Service:

 

"Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users."
and
"Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Forums."
 

Assaults on other members are impermissible.  We can disagree without being disagreeable.  We can also stay on the topic of this thread.

 

The site's Terms of Service are found here: http://www.visajourney.com/content/terms

 

TBoneTX

VJ Moderation