Income test under Trump proposal places tougher hurdles for families to get green cards

[Pennycat 880]

31 minutes ago, virgie6810 said:

When is this supposed to take effect?  Congress does not have to vote on it.

Nope, this is a proposed rule change not a change in law. They are vastly different processes. The short version is: Congress passes a statute (law) but the Executive branch (the federal agencies who have the experts) set the rules to enact/enforce that statute. In this case the law simply "Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.". The law does not define "public charge" or prescribe the manner in which State/DHS may make that determination. I believe they were or are also considering using credit scores to make this determination at some point. 

 

It works this way because Congress is made of of dairy farmers, retirees, physicians, social workers, engineers etc, who don't have the background in every niche area to get down to the specifics and their job is to set the policy, not figure out how that policy is enacted, basically. That's what the executive branch is there for, and which is why the federal service is supposed to be non-political and non-partisian (federal employees are bound by a lot of rules regarding their personal political activities and the reason they are "impossible to fire" is specifically so that a new president can't come in, fire all the workers and replace them with "experts" who just happen to also agree with his or her political will). 

 

 

The proposed rule must be published in the Federal Register for public (and Congressional) review and comment for 60 days but can be enacted right after that. Congress CAN veto a proposed rule change but that has happened once in the past 25 years. Here's some background:

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32240.pdf

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

 

[Mrsjackson 300]

22 minutes ago, AshMarty said:

Just an interesting blurb. People making less than 130% or 138% qualify for government assistance programs but making less than 130% or 138% still qualify you for immigration.

"Programs That Use the Poverty Guidelines

* The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps) is available to those who earn 130 percent of the federal poverty level. Households must also have less than $3,500 in assets with an elderly or disabled person, or $2,250 or less in households without an elderly or disabled member.

 

* Medicaid is available to families whose income is 138 percent of the poverty level. The Affordable Care Act provides insurance subsidies for households between 138 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level. 

 

Other programs include Head Start, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program."

 

I find it interesting too however I’m sure there are many instances where the government “contradicts” itself. Perhaps they’ve only just raised the benefits guidelines and immigration does not automatically raise theirs as well I don’t know. USCIS does inquire if the immigrant plans on using government assistance so they must be aware that you can meet their poverty line and still qualify for benefits. You would definitely think they’d just mirror what the benefit guidelines are for sure. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Mrsjackson

[Z@f 6]

But my confusion is that would these proposed income requirements and with public charge proposed changes effect people applying or waiting to get their ROC application to be approved?

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, Z@f said:

But my confusion is that would these proposed income requirements and with public charge proposed changes effect people applying or waiting to get their ROC application to be approved?

ROC has nothing to do with a public charge concern.

[Z@f 6]

Thanks geowrian and income requirements are also not going to effect ROC applicants is that correct?

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, Z@f said:

Thanks geowrian and income requirements are also not going to effect ROC applicants is that correct?

Correct. ROC does not look at public charge or income capabilities.

[Z@f 6]

Thanks geowrian 

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

3 hours ago, Derik-Lina said:

Before I write anything, let me assure you that Trumps gets and will always get what Trump has wanted, from Presidency to 460 Billion Dollars from the Saudis. He might not always get 100 % of he is after, but he gets a nice chunk. That said, this income guidelines, government benefits and sponsorships must be revised. My mother and now my siblings have never ever gotten a penny from the government nor from anyone. This is the land where work is available. One can have two and three jobs. And for someone to get on Government assistance of any sort, while working under the table and sucking us all dry, they ought to go to jail, let alone deported. I have seen recent Immigrants park their BMW s and Merceidez and use Foodstamps  at the grocery store while in brand-name clothes; DISGUSTING. To make matters even worse, I d hear them complaining about our government. Yes, I heard them; I am fluent in 6 languages. I have confronted some in the past, but have kept my mouth shut recently as I have grown up to realize nothing ever changes. As for Sponsorship, I am sorry to say this, but if you are jobless with 4 kids and live with your Mom, you have no business bringing anyone to Marry. Marry here and get a job. I am sorry to have sounded harsh, but I become furious when I see people with 2 and 3 co-sponsors fly thru the system as I wait forever. I have worked and paid taxes for the last 30 some years. I make enough to support three families, but yet, my wife and I must wait and wait and even wait more just because we happened to be from the wrong part of the world. I hope I did not offend anyone, but I felt I had to share as this is something that has bothered me forever.

Me too

and i know of a woman who has made 3 trips to marry and is living in section 8 housing

took her 7 years to get the spouse here

but she did

he works

she doesn't but he is now supporting all of her kids 

this is the cosponsor stuff that bothers me/ this shouldn't happen / a person already living on welfare should not be able to do this

not the ones of you who are fresh our of college or with a new job for another reason

[Pennycat 880]

3 minutes ago, adil-rafa said:

Me too

and i know of a woman who has made 3 trips to marry and is living in section 8 housing

took her 7 years to get the spouse here

but she did

he works

she doesn't but he is now supporting all of her kids 

this is the cosponsor stuff that bothers me/ this shouldn't happen / a person already living on welfare should not be able to do this

not the ones of you who are fresh our of college or with a new job for another reason

I don't disagree but just think about it from the government's perspective for a moment. We can sit here and judge people for their poor decisions all we want but the bottom line for the government is that that woman would have been on welfare one way or another, with or without him. As long as someone here (her co-sponsor) is going to financially guarantee that HE won't be added to the welfare rolls, that's all they're really concerned about in the first place and that's what the co-sponsors are for.

 

The young/just out of college folks would need a co-sponsor because they don't meet the income requirements. Cutting off co-sponsors generally, in an effort to get to people making dumb decisions, would punish a whole swath of people you'd be ok with getting co-sponsors. When really the way in which it would effect you personally as a taxpayer is taken care of. No extra person getting welfare because a co-sponsor has guaranteed he can't. Additionally, it sounds in this case you've brought up, the immigrant IS being industrious and working. Has he earned enough to get this US-born family off of welfare? That could certainly be a positive development.

 

Again, I'm not saying that someone in such bad financial shape that they personally are on welfare is making a wise decision here. And you, or I or other people can be as judgmental as we want to be about that on a personal level, lord knows I certainly am when it comes to couples on a certain reality TV program about K1 couples. But on a taxpayer money level, the co-sponsor thing sorts it out, at least until the person is a citizen (which obviously is a different set of circumstances). If that co-sponsor wants to take the burden, let them, I say. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

Can anybody clarify or pin point what the actual CHANGE that is being proposed is? Because of course the more money you have the better. What’s new here? 

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

All i know is if you all do not want this to pass, you need to make your feelings known to Congress and everyone else

 

Publication of the proposed rule starts the clock on a 60-day period for the public to submit comments on the proposed rule. The federal government must cull through the comments and that may or may not result in some rule changes before the rule becomes final.

 

The planned changes to the public charge rule also could affect families and children — some who are U.S. citizens — who use safety net programs such as food stamps and Medicaid benefits.DHS, which wrote the rule, has left it to the Justice Department to draft regulations on whether to deport people whose use of public benefits make them ineligible for legal permanent residency.

The State Department already has made some revisions to guidelines for consular officers who process applications submitted from abroad and must consider whether a person will become a public charge. It is expected the State Department could further incorporate the DHS rule once the rule is final.

But Rand said the income test also could impact people who don’t use public benefits and are in lower to middle-income jobs.

In a report issued in August, the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration think tank, found that 2.3 million of 4 million or 56 percent of non-citizens who were legally present in the U.S. and arrived in the country over the past five years lived in families with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty level.

 

“Forty percent of U.S. persons wouldn’t be able to meet this threshold,” Greenberg said.

 

 

 

Related

 

POLITICS

New Trump rule would deny green cards to immigrants who took food stamps, Medicaid

There are several ways to get a green card, the document given to people who have become legal permanent residents and which historically was green. Immigrants can apply from abroad and once approved, enter the U.S. legally.

A person can also enter the country on various temporary visas, such as an H-1B visa for high-skilled workers and adjust their status if an employer is willing to sponsor them. People in the country on a student visa or other temporary visas who marry a U.S citizen also can "adjust" their status as long as they didn't enter the country with the intention of marrying.

 

 

 

Recommended

 

Drone footage shows Hurricane Michael destruction in Mexico Beach

 

Secret deal with Turkey paves way for American pastor's release

Rand's company found that about 31 percent of its clients' foreign-born spouses were unemployed when they applied for marriage-based green cards and about 15 percent were in lower-wage jobs that would prevent them from meeting the higher government threshold.

 

Gabriel Dos Santos Macabu Pinto, 21 and Marissa Matlock, 23, of Riverside, California doubt they would have been able to pass the income test had it been in place when Gabriel applied for a green card, which he got last month.

 

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media after he landed at the White House on October 8, 2018.Alex Wong / Getty Images

He was studying to be a pilot on an M-1 vocational visa when he and Matlock decided to marry last August. They already were engaged and had moved back to the U.S. from Canada. Pinto has Brazilian and Canadian citizenship.

Their plan had been for Matlock to find a place to live while attending nursing school and he would leave, apply for the M1 visa and return and study. But that would have made him indefinitely dependent on his parents' financial help so they decided to marry sooner and have him adjust his status from an M-1 visa holder to a legal permanent resident.

At the time, because he was a student, he wasn't working and Matlock was working part-time at Pizza Hut for $11 an hour. Pinto's parents' helped out with about $3,000 to $4,000 a month, income that could be considered under the Trump proposal.

 

But that income wasn't enough for Matlock to act as sponsor for Pinto. Under current law, sponsors must submit an "affidavit of support," which is essentially a sworn pledge to the federal government that you have the income and assets to support the immigrant applying for legal residency if they can't do so themselves.

 

 

Why the U.S. needs more legal immigration, not less

JUL.05.201806:14

 

 

Since Pinto was not allowed to work and Matlock's salary was insufficient, her brother acted as sponsor.

The Trump proposal makes a significant change by requiring, in addition to the sponsor's affidavit of support, that the applicant provide a "declaration of self-sufficiency" spelling out income and other assets.

“I wouldn’t be here now if those were the rules,” Pinto said. “It was hard enough as it is. We had to make sure her brother made enough … It had to be him, plus Marissa, to make me qualify so I could stay.”

 

Robert Rector, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the Trump administration public charge proposal will help take the U.S. legal immigration system from a family-based to a skills-based immigration system.

He said the screening should be applied to people applying from abroad to enter the country.

"It's much easier to implement. It's easier to say that you are not going to admit people who are likely to be fiscal burdens than to say we are going to admit high school dropouts and discourage them from getting benefits," Rector said.

 

 

 

Related

 

POLITICS

Stephen Miller wins again: Haley, other foes excluded from immigration meeting

But the Migration Policy Institute said the policy could have "pronounced regional, national-origin and — by extension — racial effects on (immigration) flows."

 

"Our analysis finds that among recently arrived legally present non-citizens, 71 percent of Mexicans and Central Americans, 69 percent of Africans, and 52 percent of Asian immigrants would fail to meet the threshold," MPI stated in August.

The Trump proposal calls for applicants to be considered on a “totality of evidence.” But the rules will be applied by individual adjudicators and “we all know there are thousands and thousands of civil servants … who are going to default to whatever looks and feels like a bright line,” Rand said.

It’s not a stretch to predict that if government employees have to collect an applicant’s medical and credit history, financial information and reams of other evidence, they will default to the 250 percent of poverty income criteria, he said.

“Make no mistake," Rand said, "this is a radical attempt to reshape the legal immigration system without Congress."

 

FOLLOW NBC LATINO ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM.

 

 

 

 

[Teacake 76]

Thank you for that, Pennycat. My USC fiancé and I are young (22 and 23, respectively) and just recently filed our I-129F. He’s looking to start his career and I’m just out of university with a bachelor’s degree that is extremely difficult to put to use in Australia, my home country, because of a catch 22 where one needs experience to land an entry-level job. We will almost certainly need to have a co-sponsor in order for me to obtain my K1 visa, but we are determined not to depend on anyone throughout this process. Job prospects for me are a lot greater in his area of residence, and he’ll hopefully start gaining momentum in his field in the next few months. It’s upsetting to see people here on the forums write a couple like us off as being dumb.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Teacake

[Pennycat 880]

8 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

Can anybody clarify or pin point what the actual CHANGE that is being proposed is? Because of course the more money you have the better. What’s new here? 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-21106/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds

[JFH 12,190]

20 hours ago, janet3 said:

It is absolutely not a misnomer....

The article clearly states that the current administration would like to move the “guideline” above the 125%. Making the bar 250% would mean only the upper middle class or rich could assist their family (or loved ones....aka....fiance) could come here. 

 

Depends on where you live. 250% of the poverty level for a household of 2 would be just over $40k this year. In Seattle that’s just a fraction above minimum wage. You can’t keep a goldfish on that in Seattle, let alone 2 adults. But in other parts of the country you might be able to live handsomely on that. 

 

Personally, I think they need to tighten up on sponsorship requirements for K-1s, not immigrant visas for people of working age. I have lost count of how many threads I’ve seen here from K-1 couples who either want to expedite the EAD because they’ve run out of money and need another wage coming in, can’t afford AOS, are having to live with parents or other family members because the USC petitioner cannot support both of them on his/her income, wanting to work remotely for a company in their home country because they are so short of money, or find any other loophole to get them out of financial dire straits. This all comes from the I-134 only needing 100% of the poverty level and some laid-back embassies such as London allowing self-sponsorship. 

 

I came here on an IR-1 and my husband was unemployed at the time. We had to use a joint sponsor even though I had a good job waiting for me here. All immigrant visa holders are eligible to work from day one. I was working within 2 weeks of arrival, making $72,000 a year. I’ve been here almost 22 months now and have just got my second raise taking me a little over $80,000 a year before overtime. My husband is now working and earning around half that. And we had to jump through hoops with tax returns etc for the sponsorship of my visa. I’ve always worked. I had a job waiting for me. I came with several thousand in savings. Yet people on less than $20,000 a year with no savings are bringing in fiancés who cannot work for months and then find themselves struggling. I really think there needs to be stricter guidelines re financials for K-1s. I find it incredible here to see people saying they can’t afford a plane ticket for another visit even though it will help their case immensely yet they are planning on adding a non-working adult to the household for many months. We also have to remember that in this fast-paced world we live in, being out of work for 6 months or so can set you back years and cost you many places on the career ladder. I know a girl who arrived on a K-1 with an MSc in a very specialized field. Because she was “out of the game” for so long she couldn’t get a job in her field at all. She ended up working in a car repair shop making coffee for the customers and answering the phone. 

 

 

[Mrsjackson 300]

12 minutes ago, JFH said:

Depends on where you live. 250% of the poverty level for a household of 2 would be just over $40k this year. In Seattle that’s just a fraction above minimum wage. You can’t keep a goldfish on that in Seattle, let alone 2 adults. But in other parts of the country you might be able to live handsomely on that. 

 

Personally, I think they need to tighten up on sponsorship requirements for K-1s, not immigrant visas for people of working age. I have lost count of how many threads I’ve seen here from K-1 couples who either want to expedite the EAD because they’ve run out of money and need another wage coming in, can’t afford AOS, are having to live with parents or other family members because the USC petitioner cannot support both of them on his/her income, wanting to work remotely for a company in their home country because they are so short of money, or find any other loophole to get them out of financial dire straits. This all comes from the I-134 only needing 100% of the poverty level and some laid-back embassies such as London allowing self-sponsorship. 

 

I came here on an IR-1 and my husband was unemployed at the time. We had to use a joint sponsor even though I had a good job waiting for me here. All immigrant visa holders are eligible to work from day one. I was working within 2 weeks of arrival, making $72,000 a year. I’ve been here almost 22 months now and have just got my second raise taking me a little over $80,000 a year before overtime. My husband is now working and earning around half that. And we had to jump through hoops with tax returns etc for the sponsorship of my visa. I’ve always worked. I had a job waiting for me. I came with several thousand in savings. Yet people on less than $20,000 a year with no savings are bringing in fiancés who cannot work for months and then find themselves struggling. I really think there needs to be stricter guidelines re financials for K-1s. I find it incredible here to see people saying they can’t afford a plane ticket for another visit even though it will help their case immensely yet they are planning on adding a non-working adult to the household for many months. We also have to remember that in this fast-paced world we live in, being out of work for 6 months or so can set you back years and cost you many places on the career ladder. I know a girl who arrived on a K-1 with an MSc in a very specialized field. Because she was “out of the game” for so long she couldn’t get a job in her field at all. She ended up working in a car repair shop making coffee for the customers and answering the phone. 

 

 

Sorry I accidentally quoted you and now have to type in here so this is actually just a general question for everyone. Does anyone know of a couple being denied when the petitioner only just met the 125% poverty line? 

 

Also, I wonder if USCIS takes into consideration where you live. For example, yes a couple in Seattle might not be able to live on $40k but in rural Washington that’ll get you pretty far. I know it’s about “totality of circumstances” so I wonder if they look at your income in conjunction with where you live to determine if it’s enough? Or is it more black and white than that?