Reuters:Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, Mrsjackson said:

Why yes I do

ok, where are they?

[Mrsjackson 300]

21 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Yes it was, but very easy to analyze as there is really no substance to it. I googled the author and she is a San Francisco based writer for Reuters. So not exactly unbiased in her opinions, more propagandist than journalist. This is the result when emotion is the driving factor.

What I zeroed in on was the officer’s consideration of Medicaid, which is something they were previously not permitted to consider in consulates. Now, if the author fabricated that then the whole thing is a moot point. I wasn’t really analyzing the article in any way, and certainly not suggesting it was reputable or should incite panic. My entire thing is the consideration of Medicaid now being something officers can incorporate into their public charge risk decisions. And that’s something that was implemented in January 2018 in the foreign affairs manual. It’s significant because the author (of this very poorly written article) states Medicaid was one of two things the officer considered when deeming this man a public charge risk. It begs the question, if this change to the FAM guidelines had not been implemented, would the man have skated by? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Whether or not we think he should have is not really the point I’m getting at.

 

Do you see what I mean? I’m not endorsing the article itself, or suggesting that the new guidelines are even unjust or wrong. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

6 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

ok, where are they?

You should read the article that I already linked you. Clearly, you haven’t. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

8 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

ok, where are they?

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n1/68n1p31.html

[MjC772 94]

48 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Here are some of the things I have my students consider when doing article analysis of a controversial topic:

• what is the topic?
• is the topic stated or implied?
• what is the authors purpose?
• is there any bias?
• does the author present enough information to make an informed decision? (especially true for opinion/persuasive arguments)
• does the author present any supporting information and is that effective?
• do you agree or disagree with authors position?
• is this article effective/did it attain the goal/purpose of the author?

Excellent. Unfortunately, most journalists threw these kinds of analyses out the window on November 8, 2016.... 

[Boiler 45,499]

I assume the Medicaid reference was if she could not support herself and children how was she going to support anybody else. I had missed the bit about her not working so they would be totally dependent on FIL.

[dirtyhippiegirl 85]

36 minutes ago, theresaL said:

Yes it was, but very easy to analyze as there is really no substance to it. I googled the author and she is a San Francisco based writer for Reuters. So not exactly unbiased in her opinions, more propagandist than journalist. This is the result when emotion is the driving factor.

According to the top two media bias fact check websites I found on Google, Reuters runs centrist/less biased than other news sources. Can't speak to individual reporters obviously. Do you also teach your students that sources that disagrees with your world view aren't automatically biased or "propagandist."

[Boiler 45,499]

1 minute ago, dirtyhippiegirl said:

According to the top two media bias fact check websites I found on Google, Reuters runs centrist/less biased than other news sources. Can't speak to individual reporters obviously. Do you also teach your students that sources that disagrees with your world view aren't automatically biased or "propagandist."

I could do a full critique but she obviously has very limited knowledge of the subject. As it supports an agenda is it hers or is it the sources she used?

[Ben & Katy 168]

I wouldn't eliminate co sponsoring because as many have said it is not black and white.   My cousin in law she makes good money as an entrepreneur but she used to claim her nephews on her taxes for the tax  breaks because she took care of them since her sisters were always in and out of jobs.  Hindsite 20/20 years later she met a guy overseas and found out that she would need a sponsor for her husband because all those nephews she was claiming came back to bite her on the affidavit.  So there are many unique situations on to why co-sponsoring should not be eliminated.  What about the USC that decide to live overseas with their spouses for 5 years and then want to come back to the US and bring their foreign spouses with?  These people really need co-sponsoring before they can get back on their feet in the states.  

[Boiler 45,499]

UK does not allow joint sponsors, and requires a higher income. You can make it work, some Consulates are much tougher on Domicile, it is a family reunification visa after all.

[dirtyhippiegirl 85]

13 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I could do a full critique but she obviously has very limited knowledge of the subject. As it supports an agenda is it hers or is it the sources she used?

Well, everything has an agenda. You can critique an article on its merits and there certainly is a place in critical thinking for evaluating where the sources are coming from. But an automatic assumption that the author is biased because she lives in San Francisco and writes for a non-right wing news source speaks to the inherent bias in the person making those assumptions, as well.

[Ben & Katy 168]

15 hours ago, millefleur said:

This is iffy. The income has to be US-based, what if it's a stay-at-home mother USC sponsoring their spouse and they've been living abroad together for years? This was exactly my sister's situation, and her husband got here via the help of a joint sponsor. Now her husband earns a 6 figure income as a computer programmer, clearly has no risk whatsoever at being a public charge and is actually a net gain for the US as a skilled worker. If joint sponsors were eliminated, he would not have been able to get here because my sister could not have sponsored him as she's never had a steady income in her life (and probably never will).

 

It's a case-by-case thing and they should leave it that way. It's hard to apply a one-size-fits all method and joint sponsors also take into account those in the above situation or those living abroad for years for whom showing US income would be difficult.

My cousin in law that needed a co-sponsor is in that situation now.  Now that her husband is here he became the bread winner as an electrician.  He makes way more than her now.  

[Boiler 45,499]

1 minute ago, dirtyhippiegirl said:

Well, everything has an agenda. You can critique an article on its merits and there certainly is a place in critical thinking for evaluating where the sources are coming from. But an automatic assumption that the author is biased because she lives in San Francisco and writes for a non-right wing news source speaks to the inherent bias in the person making those assumptions, as well.

Sure they will be exceptions but San Fan media does not have many. And the article does follow what you might expect.

[Ben & Katy 168]

13 hours ago, RLA said:

Maybe they could, but that's beside the point.  USCIS's decision hurts Americans: the taxpayers or the family or, most likely, both.  That's why I think the rule should be revised so that it considers the immigrant's earning potential, not just the sponsor's. 

Exactly!  And what is the point of "deporting" sort of speak US citizens to other countries to be able to be with their loved ones?  I mean I wouldn't have left my spouse hanging in Juarez if they had not let her in.  And yes alot of immigrants have earning potential.  I have seen two personal cases within family where the immigrant is making all the money and the USC is the stagnant one or the one earning less. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

An author leaning left or right also doesn’t automatically mean their work is biased. Just saying.