Final public charge rule

[ujones 148]

1 hour ago, missileman said:

I have seen no mention of race in the new clarification....everyone is much too quick to play the racism card....the public charge law has been in effect for quite some time ...I see an attempt to protect the US taxpayer from risky immigrants who would be added to the roles of public welfare. 

 

Side note:  I am surprised at the number of people who don't seem to consider what it will cost to live and provide health care in the US BEFORE starting the immigration process.  Some people seem to consider it as an after thought.......

@missileman, do they still count sponsor’s assets to supplement taxable income deficit or does it have to be met thru income alone ?

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

1 minute ago, ujones said:

@missileman, do they still count sponsor’s assets to supplement taxable income deficit or does it have to be met thru income alone ?

To my knowledge, nothing on the I-134 or I-864 has changed......

[yuna628 9,687]

34 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

A more logical step to me would be to completely do away with co-sponsors. Would do a lot more to make the spirit of the rule effective in my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with using co-sponsors or joint sponsors. If all parties agree and the person makes more than enough to pass the test, what exactly is the issue? We are very grateful to our co-sponsor, without them, I would not only not be able to be with my husband but he would not be a successful taxpaying LPR fulfilling a critical role in his job and enjoying the opportunities this country has given him because of his hard work.. We never asked our co-sponsor for a dime, nor did we ever utilize the 'system'. We paid for our wedding. We paid for our health insurance. We had savings that saw our way through. Not everyone's case is straightforward, some are a little more complicated.

[cyclone27 710]

44 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

A more logical step to me would be to completely do away with co-sponsors. Would do a lot more to make the spirit of the rule effective in my opinion.

Yes - if you are going to sponsor someone you need to do it on your own income.

[ThomasNC1988 762]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

We never asked our co-sponsor for a dime

Exactly, and likely if you had needed a dime you would not have gotten one from them. Asking your mama, uncle, brother, cousin, or friend to fill out a form for you is far different than asking them to support you through hard times which is what they are agreeing to do when they sign. I'm glad you made it through and were successful. However, the number of no income people you see bringing over low education/unemployed foreigners is disheartening and shows why people are dissatisfied with the system. The merit of the petitioner and beneficiary should be what is used to determine immigration not whether or not they know someone with enough money that is willing to sign a form for them.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

5 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

The merit of the petitioner and beneficiary should be what is used to determine immigration not whether or not they know someone with enough money that is willing to sign a form for them.

Reasonable point.......what happens if the joint sponsor dies (as an example) after the immigrant arrives?  How is the US taxpayer protected?  

[yuna628 9,687]

10 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

Exactly, and likely if you had needed a dime you would not have gotten one from them. Asking your mama, uncle, brother, cousin, or friend to fill out a form for you is far different than asking them to support you through hard times which is what they are agreeing to do when they sign. I'm glad you made it through and were successful. However, the number of no income people you see bringing over low education/unemployed foreigners is disheartening and shows why people are dissatisfied with the system. The merit of the petitioner and beneficiary should be what is used to determine immigration not whether or not they know someone with enough money that is willing to sign a form for them.

Our co-sponsor was more than willing to support us through hard times, because they are a kind and wonderful person that loves the both of us. But we'd never ask them to do that, and we ensured that we had significant savings. We're the ones helping our co-sponsor these days in fact. I had no income at the time. Why? Well, I didn't ask my mother to get cancer and debilitating illness that's for sure. I gave up employment to ensure she was properly cared for. My husband doesn't have a low education, but that really didn't matter - because even with a high education he started at the bottom and worked his way up just like everyone else does. A K1 is going to always come here unemployed. They are not allowed to work until authorized, and a great deal of time that could be spent working, is spent waiting for the USCIS to get off their butts playing candy crush and adjudicate their forms. This critical period is where a lot of couples run into trouble if they don't have savings. And not all 'foreigners' as you put it, need to be working. It seems there are a lot of low education housewives on this forum from the get-go. That seems to work out just fine for them.

Edited August 13, 2019 by yuna628

[cyclone27 710]

^not to mention if you can’t earn 125% the poverty level yourself something is seriously wrong.

[ThomasNC1988 762]

1 minute ago, missileman said:

Reasonable point.......what happens if the joint sponsor dies (as an example) after the immigrant arrives?  How is the US taxpayer protected?  

Perhaps purchasing a bond linked to a alien number and SSN to protect the government from cost associated with an immigrant being a public charge should be required? I'm not saying that is an answer, but there has to be a better way than changing the rules to make it tougher on people, but still letting them be totally avoidable by getting someone to sign for you.

[JeanneAdil 6,583]

Just wondering how this is all going to be determined as insurance and cost of living varies so much from state to state and city to city

i live in a relatively moderate cost state while someone in Miami or NYC is paying outrageous for a house or apartment

I always wondered how they can consider just over $20,000 adequate for some of the more expensive areas 

so,  how do they determine a  public charge when income,  cost of insurance,  medical expenses,  vary so greatly

 

found this:

CNBC published the results of this study in the summer of 2018. The cheapest state to live in was determined to be Mississippi. The average home price in this state is just over $214,000. A monthly utility bill is over $114, while a doctor visit costs less than $90. 

Having lived once in Mississippi that monthly utility bill was electric and water and   ran the whole house.

 

Hawaii,  DC,  California,  and New York are the highest

 

so ,  this would take an accountant to figure who MAY be a public charge by just income / never did make sense and now makes less sense

 

 

[Ash.1101 1,756]

3 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

Perhaps purchasing a bond linked to a alien number and SSN to protect the government from cost associated with an immigrant being a public charge should be required? I'm not saying that is an answer, but there has to be a better way than changing the rules to make it tougher on people, but still letting them be totally avoidable by getting someone to sign for you.

I mean, you can still get your GC if your spouse dies. What if they leave everything to their kids? What if within 2 years of their death you end up on aid? Lots of if's.


With that said, it's great that people got people to simply sign things. It took us a month to find a second cosponsor because family members didn't want to send their tax returns or have  their personal information exposed such as social security and what not.


The best way to make people understand they have to support the immigrant if something like this happens, would for the courts to actually make the people support the immigrant. The problem is, no one has time for that, so it's easier to just up the requirements and make it harder to get in.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

4 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

Just wondering how this is all going to be determined as insurance and cost of living varies so much from state to state and city to city

i live in a relatively moderate cost state while someone in Miami or NYC is paying outrageous for a house or apartment

I always wondered how they can consider just over $20,000 adequate for some of the more expensive areas 

so,  how do they determine a  public charge when income,  cost of insurance,  medical expenses,  vary so greatly

 

found this:

CNBC published the results of this study in the summer of 2018. The cheapest state to live in was determined to be Mississippi. The average home price in this state is just over $214,000. A monthly utility bill is over $114, while a doctor visit costs less than $90. 

Having lived once in Mississippi that monthly utility bill was electric and water and   ran the whole house.

 

Hawaii,  DC,  California,  and New York are the highest

 

so ,  this would take an accountant to figure who MAY be a public charge by just income / never did make sense and now makes less sense

 

 

We had a guy on here that lived in someones garage in Silicon Valley and was asking how soon his fiance could work when they got in because finances were already tight. People responded to him that he should find a cosponsor, to which he responded that he didn't have to because he made well over the 125%, he just happened to live and work in Silicon Valley. 

[Unlockable 7,315]

I'm on the fence about the getting rid of cosponsors proposal. I mean, I see the points on both sides. i think it should be discretionary.

 

If a young couple fresh out of college need help from a parent then so be it so they can bring over their fiance to start their life together, then so be it.

 

But somebody coming on a message board like VJ asking if any of the members would be willing to cosponsor. I think should not be an option. And for those who are wondering, yes, we have had people in the past come on VJ asking fro cosponsors.

 

[yuna628 9,687]

1 minute ago, Ash. said:

I mean, you can still get your GC if your spouse dies. What if they leave everything to their kids? What if within 2 years of their death you end up on aid? Lots of if's.


With that said, it's great that people got people to simply sign things. It took us a month to find a second cosponsor because family members didn't want to send their tax returns or have  their personal information exposed such as social security and what not.


The best way to make people understand they have to support the immigrant if something like this happens, would for the courts to actually make the people support the immigrant. The problem is, no one has time for that, so it's easier to just up the requirements and make it harder to get in.

I honestly have no problem with the courts going after the sponsor if there is any abuse. Perhaps if they'd done that to begin with, no one would complain. It's a serious legal document to sign, and we certainly all took it seriously. I don't understand how some don't take it seriously, but that is none of our business. We've seen enough stupid things on this forum, and half the time I don't know if you can take it seriously.

 

1 minute ago, Unlockable said:

I'm on the fence about the getting rid of cosponsors proposal. I mean, I see the points on both sides. i think it should be discretionary.

 

If a young couple fresh out of college need help from a parent then so be it so they can bring over their fiance to start their life together, then so be it.

 

But somebody coming on a message board like VJ asking if any of the members would be willing to cosponsor. I think should not be an option. And for those who are wondering, yes, we have had people in the past come on VJ asking fro cosponsors.

 

Perhaps it should be limited to close family members? But honestly the best thing would be to just enforce the document.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

I honestly have no problem with the courts going after the sponsor if there is any abuse. Perhaps if they'd done that to begin with, no one would complain. It's a serious legal document to sign, and we certainly all took it seriously. I don't understand how some don't take it seriously, but that is none of our business. We've seen enough stupid things on this forum, and half the time I don't know if you can take it seriously.

 

Perhaps it should be limited to close family members? But honestly the best thing would be to just enforce the document.

Yep. It's the same logic as all of the people going "Well I've seen XYZ number of people do this" "Just do this and this, you'll be fine, that almost happens to no one!" or "There's only been one guy sued for the I-864 in decades!" and just ignoring the potential that just because it can be done or hasn't been enforced recently doesn't mean it should be done or that something is unenforceable.