Immigrants could be required to show credit scores if they want to stay in the U.S.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

On 11/27/2018 at 4:06 PM, WaterLeaf said:

I would like to extend the discussion.

 

Had anyone thought about any reason that isn't good for this to be passed?

I've read a few things such as it could add backlog to the system, possibly raise AOS fee, the complication of getting a credit card on the first try is not likely unless you have someone that trust you to put it on their card or get a secured credit card... what else?

Credit scores are useful tools for lenders to assess risk and determine appropriate interest rates. They're developed and maintained with that purpose only. You can't really use them for other purposes, such as determining who is a good citizen. There are many problems that arise when you use "proxy" measures that measure totally different things. 

 

Not to mention the possible religious discrimination. Some religions don't allow credit and building a credit score is not something that everyone should be interested in anyway. Some people don't intend to get a mortgage, etc., so they don't have to care about building a credit score (hint - credit scores are for credit purposes). 

[WaterLeaf 200]

That's interesting, I never knew such thing like as religious exemption about the credit score.

 

But yes, some people can build up enough and not have to worry about a car loan or mortgage.

 

Thank you Orangesapples!

[geowrian 22,337]

The lack of a credit score would not be a negative factor under the proposal:

"DHS recognizes that not everyone has a credit report in the United States. The absence of an established U.S. credit history would not necessarily be a negative factor when evaluating public charge in the totality of the circumstances. Absent a U.S. credit report or score, USCIS may give positive weight to an alien who can show little to no debt and a history of paying bills timely. An alien may provide evidence of regular and timely payment of bills, and limited balances on credit cards and loans"

[Orangesapples 1,954]

11 hours ago, geowrian said:

The lack of a credit score would not be a negative factor under the proposal:

"DHS recognizes that not everyone has a credit report in the United States. The absence of an established U.S. credit history would not necessarily be a negative factor when evaluating public charge in the totality of the circumstances. Absent a U.S. credit report or score, USCIS may give positive weight to an alien who can show little to no debt and a history of paying bills timely. An alien may provide evidence of regular and timely payment of bills, and limited balances on credit cards and loans"

They will need to make their own scores then. 

 

Still kind of ridiculous in a country with a dysfunctional healthcare system. 

[RLA 323]

13 hours ago, geowrian said:

The lack of a credit score would not be a negative factor under the proposal:

Only if the applicant can prove, among other things, that they have little or no outstanding debt.  I wonder how you would prove that without a credit score.  Even if they manage to prove that, it would require a lot of additional paperwork to assemble and submit, and then for USCIS to evaluate.  That most likely means longer processing times and higher fees, which will make it even more difficult for immigrant families to make a living. 

 

Anyway, before they implement that policy I'd like to see some evidence that income + credit score really is a better predictor of a person becoming dependent on government help than income alone.  I'd also like to see how they'd handle cases such as that of an entrepreneur whose first business failed.  If he's managed to get back on his feet he's probably not going to be a drain on soceity, rather the opposite I'd think  Still, his credit score is going to be abysmal for quite a while, and maybe he even had to rely on government support for a short while.  

 

ETA: Asking for credit scores would probably hamper immigrant entrepreneurialism because they wouldn't just just risk their money but also their immigration status. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by RLA

[geowrian 22,337]

2 hours ago, RLA said:

Only if the applicant can prove, among other things, that they have little or no outstanding debt.  I wonder how you would prove that without a credit score.  Even if they manage to prove that, it would require a lot of additional paperwork to assemble and submit, and then for USCIS to evaluate.  That most likely means longer processing times and higher fees, which will make it even more difficult for immigrant families to make a living.

The way they evaluate it, according to the proposal, is via a totality of the circumstances. A "good" credit score & history is to be deemed a positive factor in the decision. A "bad" one would be a negative factor. If one does not have a suitable history to make that decision, they can submit the other forms of documentation in order to make the same decision. Choosing not to provide those would not automatically be considered a negative factor still...it's just not a positive factor either.

 

Having a stable job that pays a livable wage for the household size - barring negative factors - will still be fine.

I'm not suggesting the proposed rules would not make it harder for anybody. At the same time, the current rules are quite lax IMO, so being able to consider more factors is reasonable. Whether including credit scores is effective, however, I'm not personally confident on. They were never intended to be used for this purpose.

[RLA 323]

2 hours ago, geowrian said:

I'm not suggesting the proposed rules would not make it harder for anybody. At the same time, the current rules are quite lax IMO, so being able to consider more factors is reasonable. 

I wouldn't say that the rules are lax per se.  It's just that the income requirements are really quite low.  If they don't want to raise them outright they could introduce a regional factor.  It doesn't really make sense that the income requirements are the same for Manhattan as for Buffalo County, South Dakota.  HUD maintains detailed income statistics for every county including definitions of "low", "very low", and even "extremely low" income limits depending on household size.  USCIS could just use those numbers.  That would take care of many problematic cases without introducing additional paperwork.  

[geowrian 22,337]

14 minutes ago, RLA said:

I wouldn't say that the rules are lax per se.  It's just that the income requirements are really quite low.  If they don't want to raise them outright they could introduce a regional factor.  It doesn't really make sense that the income requirements are the same for Manhattan as for Buffalo County, South Dakota.  HUD maintains detailed income statistics for every county including definitions of "low", "very low", and even "extremely low" income limits depending on household size.  USCIS could just use those numbers.  That would take care of many problematic cases without introducing additional paperwork.  

I say "lax" because COs and IOs can (and sometimes do) already take those factors into account. There is a minimum to file, but no minimum to guarantee success. The change in rules gives them the tools to take more into account.

For instance somebody making $50k/year could be in good shape in a suburb, or they could be living paycheck to paycheck due to other commitments (i.e. loans, mortgage, etc.). Currently, the CO or IO has no way to know whether they are doing fine overall or they are one bad workday or a medical injury away from being unable to afford a place to live.