Mega Thread for All questions regarding Public Charge

[CarlHamilton 252]

Oh God, here we go again. This is a naturalization forum.  The proposed rule has nothing to do with naturalization.  The previous versions didn't either.  How long do we have to beat this dead horse?

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 minute ago, DiegoRlz said:

Is it good or bad?

Not as bad as we were expecting ( i mean for those who have passed the greencard application) but still is awfull!

Edited September 23, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 minute ago, CarlHamilton said:

Oh God, here we go again. This is a naturalization forum.  The proposed rule has nothing to do with naturalization.  The previous versions didn't either.  How long do we have to beat this dead horse?

For as long as we have not recieved the citizenship 🙂

[T+E 2]

9 hours ago, JFH said:

I don’t know about other states but here in WA only USCs are eligible for “Apple Health” (our state’s version of Medicaid). So if a non-citizen has obtained services through Apple Health surely they have obtained something fraudulently or made a false claim of citizenship? 

 

Honestly, this ruling doesn’t bother me in the slightest as I know I’m not eligible for public assistance and have no plans to avail myself of it, legally or otherwise. Even my husband, a USC by birth who has lived here all his life, was told he wasn’t eligible for food stamps when his work hours were reduced (his work is very seasonal) because there is “an immigrant in the house” (to quote the employee at DSHS). The reasoning behind this was people who share a home, especially married couples, likely share grocery shopping and if they gave my husband food stamps I would ultimately benefit by eating from the same loaf of bread, etc so he was ineligible. So I can’t imagine how any non-citizen is getting these benefits? 

A mixed-citizenship married couple in CA may obtain health insurance through the state's health care exchange, called Coverage California, assuming the USC is not employed by an employer that offers health insurance benefits. As part of that application process, they ask for household income, and then automatically apply a subsidy if the total household income is below a certain amount. This is the grey area that the article does not seem to address.

[Dave&Kal 26]

I read on CNN : "    The move is not intended to affect most immigrants who have already been granted green cards, but advocates have said they fear that those with legal resident status will stop using public benefits to protect their status"

 

in other word, if you already have a green card , then this should not bother you! But based on the last 2 years experience with this administration, i feel everything could be a reason to bother anyone, even if you think you are not being affected! 

[Dave&Kal 26]

Here is the heads up:

 

In certain cases, federal officials said, people who are already lawful permanent residents and who have previously received benefits could be subject to the new rule if they leave the country and try to return. But most existing green card holders would be unaffected.

[Villanelle 4,122]

Sept 21 2018- Department of Homeland Security announced a proposed rule that will clearly define long-standing law to ensure that those seeking to enter and remain in the United States either temporarily or permanently can support themselves financially and will not be reliant on public benefits.

 

Here is the unofficial proposed rule- https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0921_USCIS_Proposed-Rule-Public-Charge.pdf 

The next step if for it to be published in the federal registrar and be open for comments. When it does a link will be posted on VJ and I encourage members to comment on it.

 

Here is a summary of the proposed changes by Protecting Immigrant Families Campaign. 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PUBLIC CHARGE: QUICK ANALYSIS

Last updated: 9/23/2018

How the public charge rule is applied today

Under the current policy, the only benefi­ts considered in determining who is likely to become a “public charge” are:

• Cash assistance -- such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and comparable state or local programs.

• Government-funded long-term institutional care.

How public charge could change

On September 22, several news outlets released a breaking story on the status of the public charge rule. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has also issued a press release and the text of the proposed rule that will soon be published for comment.  

If the rule is ­finalized in its proposed form, this would mark a significant and harmful departure from the current policy. For over a hundred years, the government has recognized that work supports like health care and nutrition help families thrive and remain productive.  And decades ago the government clarified that immigrant families can seek health and nutrition benefits without fearing that doing so will harm their immigration case. If this rule is finalized, we can no longer offer that assurance.

Here are some key points from the latest version of the rule:

• It radically expands the list of programs that may be considered to include not only cash and long-term care but also certain health care, nutrition and housing programs.

• Benefi­ts that could be considered in a “public charge” determination include key programs that help participants meet their basic needs. These programs include:

• Non-emergency Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits for treating an "emergency medical condition," certain disability services related to education, and benefits received by children of U.S. citizens who will be automatically eligible to become citizens);

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP);

• Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy;

• Housing assistance, such as public housing or Section 8 housing vouchers and rental assistance

• DHS will not consider disaster relief, emergency medical assistance, benefits received by an immigrant’s family members, or entirely state, local or tribal programs other than those specifically listed.  DHS asks for input on inclusion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but this program is not included in the current regulatory text.

• The rule will not be retroactive. This means that benefits -- other than cash or long-term care at government expense -- that are used before the rule is final and effective will not be considered in the public charge determination.

• Adopts a new bright-line threshold for households that hope to overcome a “public charge” test - by requiring that the immigrant (not just the sponsor) earn at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Level - and by weighing as “heavily positive” a household income of 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. This means, to avoid scrutiny under the public charge test, a family of 4 would need to earn nearly $63,000 annually.

• Applies a similar test to applications for extensions of non-immigrant visas, and changes of non-immigrant status (e.g., from a student visa to an employment visa)

• Does not interpret or expand the public charge ground of deportability. Under current law, a person who has become a public charge can be deported only in extremely rare circumstances.

• Sets forth standards for immigration officials to consider when evaluating criteria such as age, health, income, and education. The rules would negatively consider applicants with limited English proficiency, as well as applicants with physical or mental health conditions that could affect their ability to work, attend school or care for themselves.

• Elevates the use of public charge bonds for people applying for lawful permanent residence (a green card). This means that people deemed inadmissible as a public charge, such as because of their income, or a health condition, may be required to pay a minimum of $10,000 for admission, and would risk losing this bond if they use any benefits listed in the rule.

• Receipt of benefits above a certain minimal threshold in the 36 months prior to applying for status would be counted as “significant negative factors” in the public charge determination.  Any non-cash benefits used prior to the rule becoming final would not be considered in this “look back” period. The threshold for counting these benefits is 15% of the poverty level for a single person (currently $1,821) in a 12-month period for cash and cash-like (“monetizable benefits”).  For benefits with an undetermined value (“nonmonetizable benefits”) such as health insurance and public housing, the limit is 12 months in a 36 month period or 9 months if you receive both kinds of benefits.

How does this differ from previous drafts of the rule?

In several ways, the rule released on September 22 is narrower than the drafts that were leaked to the media this spring. However, any expansion of the public charge rule will have a devastating impact on children, families and communities. Children will be harmed under this proposal, as parent and child health are inextricably linked. If adults lose access to nutrition supports under SNAP, the entire family will have less to eat.  And immigrant families already have been dropping off of programs in response to press accounts about public charge. Even though the proposed changes would not take effect until the rule is finalized -- and would apply only to benefits received after that point -- the threat of changes will cause more fear and confusion about how this test works.

 

Things to keep in mind

Some immigrant groups are not subject to “public charge.” Certain immigrants—such as refugees, asylees, survivors of domestic violence, and other protected groups—are not subject to “public charge” determinations and would not be affected by this proposed rule.  Public charge is also not a consideration when lawful permanent residents (green card holders) apply to become U.S. citizens. The regulation also proposes to exclude benefits received by active duty servicemembers, their spouses and children.

 

Overall circumstances considered. The public charge statute — which cannot be changed by regulations — requires immigration officials to look at all factors that relate to noncitizens’ ability to support themselves, including their age, health, income, assets, resources, education/skills, family to support, and family who will support them. They may also consider whether a sponsor has signed an affidavit of support (or contract) promising to support the noncitizen. Since the test looks at the person’s overall circumstances, no one factor is definitive. Any negative factor, such as not having a job, can be overcome by positive factors, such as having completed training for a new profession.

 

What happens next?

Once the proposed rule is officially published in the Federal Register, the public will be able to submit comments for 60 days. After DHS carefully considers public comments received on the proposed rule, DHS plans to issue a final public charge rule that will include an effective date at least 60 days after the date the final rule is published. In the meantime, and until a final rule is in effect, USCIS will continue to apply the current public charge policy (i.e., the 1999 INS Interim Field Guidance).

[CEE53147 559]

It has often happened that sponsors abandon their financial support of  their sponsored relatives as soon as possible. Especially problematic are elderly parent dumped on SSI, Medicaid, and low income apartments.

 

It is also obvious that the current income requirement for sponsorship is far too low. Children receive free meals with incomes at 140% of the poverty level and there are health insurance subsidies up to 400%.  A low income individual sponsoring a relative immediately can jeopardize his core family. A single individual who could afford to sponsor cannot afford to marry and have children.  Sponsorship income requirements assumes the immigrant will live in the same household as the sponsor; how many families really have the room or resources to include several others in their residence and budget. Many cities and landlords have occupancy limitations. How many 4 and 5 and 6 bedroom apartments do you know of in your location? I know of very few in my area of over 500,000 people.

 

We have many long time and new citizens in need of the resources being given to individuals who choose to come to the US but are unable to contribute to their own support for a variety of reasons. We have many homeless who need the housing and other resources being given to arriving immigrants.  Until we can properly accommodate all who are in the US already, it is reasonable to limit immigration to those who will not further burden our system.

[AnnJacks 6]

“..by requiring that the immigrant (not just the sponsor) earn at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Level - and by weighing as “heavily positive” a household income of 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. This means, to avoid scrutiny under the public charge test, a family of 4 would need to earn nearly $63,000 annually.”

 

soo, if you coming here on K-1 you need to proof you will earn at least 125% of poverty level. Ij some countries is a huge amount of money. So basically you wont get approved. 

Or i dont understand. 

 

 

[Boiler 46,282]

Lost count of the number of threads I have seen about people who have brought their Parents here and want to know what benefits they can get.

[jb914 33]

15 hours ago, T+E said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-benefits/trump-administration-moves-to-restrict-immigrants-who-use-public-benefits-idUSKCN1M20YP

 

It’s not clear whether this will affect USC + AOS Green Card applicant couples who obtain health insurance through their state’s ACA marketplace. Can anyone confirm?

 

Under the proposed rule, Medicaid will be considered a public benefit, but not ACA tax subsidies.

 

However, many states administer Medicaid through their ACA portal, so people may be receiving Medicaid without being aware (Oregon Health Plan, NY State of Health, etc).

 

Also, the proposal says they are considering adding CHIP (Childrens Health Insurance Program) to the list, and requesting comments. CHIP covers children of families who make up  to and sometimes even over 250% of poverty, depending on the state, and again, is administered by some states through their ACA portal, so people may be receiving CHIP for their children without being aware.

 

Importantly, appears that DHS will not be applying these new definitions retroactively, but rather after the date of the rule change which is Jan 1 2019, to give people time to stop receiving benefits that may disqualify them. However, they also say they are looking at the totality of each case, and weighing all relevant factors in making public charge determinations.

 

I read most of the 447 page draft and will post important excerpts shortly. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000166-0380-d9ba-a1ee-43ab14080000

Edited September 23, 2018 by jb914

[Dave&Kal 26]

Also useful to notice: 

 

According to the Trump administration the new rule  wouldn't be retroactive, and immigrants' green card chances won't be hurt if they remove themselves from the benefits rolls within 60 days of the rule going into effect.

 

 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

5 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

Not as bad as we were expecting ( i mean for those who have passed the greencard application) but still is awfull!

Why?

 

 

[jb914 33]

Well, it looks like Mods deleted my post with excerpts from the rules change.

 

The rules change will be posted on the Federal Register at https://www.federalregister.gov, and is an official DHS document provided to the press by DHS yesterday, 9/22, so I am not sure why they think it does not follow the forum rules.

[Dave&Kal 26]

4 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Why?

 

 

Why what?