Final public charge rule

[ThomasNC1988 762]

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

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.

Sounds like you could support yourselves as a married couple and didn't need a sponsor? Anyhow, what is wrong with being a housewife or househusband if it suits you and your spouse is okay with it and makes enough to support you? What I am saying is people who obviously do not have the means to be successful shouldn't be allowed to avoid the rules by knowing someone who can sign. There should be an equal bar for everyone with no regard to who your family members and friends are. If you are living in the US without significant resources and can not earn 21k dollars a year you have no business bringing over someone else that has little resources and no ability to earn when they get here. It is not even all about protecting the US government from costs. Soooooooo many of these immigrants from poorer countries do not understand that the US is not the land of milk and honey they dream of and arrive in terrible situations where their spouse has no means to support them they way they need. I know when my wife arrived I didn't expect her to work right away or anything I understood that I would need to take care of a lot of her needs. Buy her winter clothes which aren't a thing in Thailand, every toiletry you could imagine, a car (it is not possible to work in my area without one), car insurance, a phone, all sorts of foods that I would never have. The expense is incredible and people should be prepared. A 20 year old me never could have taken care of all this and should not have been allowed under any circumstances to bring someone to this country to depend on me regardless of who I could get to cosponsor.

[ThomasNC1988 762]

12 minutes ago, Ash. said:

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 get what you mean, I over simplified.

 

People still wouldn't take time to understand until the government was ready to take their money.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

3 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

Sounds like you could support yourselves as a married couple and didn't need a sponsor? Anyhow, what is wrong with being a housewife or househusband if it suits you and your spouse is okay with it and makes enough to support you? What I am saying is people who obviously do not have the means to be successful shouldn't be allowed to avoid the rules by knowing someone who can sign. There should be an equal bar for everyone with no regard to who your family members and friends are. If you are living in the US without significant resources and can not earn 21k dollars a year you have no business bringing over someone else that has little resources and no ability to earn when they get here. It is not even all about protecting the US government from costs. Soooooooo many of these immigrants from poorer countries do not understand that the US is not the land of milk and honey they dream of and arrive in terrible situations where their spouse has no means to support them they way they need. I know when my wife arrived I didn't expect her to work right away or anything I understood that I would need to take care of a lot of her needs. Buy her winter clothes which aren't a thing in Thailand, every toiletry you could imagine, a car (it is not possible to work in my area without one), car insurance, a phone, all sorts of foods that I would never have. The expense is incredible and people should be prepared. A 20 year old me never could have taken care of all this and should not have been allowed under any circumstances to bring someone to this country to depend on me regardless of who I could get to cosponsor.

See that's the problem. USCIS can't hope that we're going to become great households and support ourselves. If her income was 0 at a time, there was no choice but to have a co/joint sponsor. 

Same with my family. I was a stay at home mom for 7 years taking care of my disabled daughter making 0$ income with my father and my husband (fiance at the time) supporting me. The CO recognized the issue and asked for a second Cosponsor (first made over 125%, the second made over 250%). 3 years into the marriage now, my husband I work full time and we make over 60k. USCIS couldn't have predicted that and they shouldn't bring people in on a hope.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Ash.

[Scandi 4,163]

1 hour 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.

That's how it is in Sweden, there's no such thing as a joint- or co-sponsor.

[ThomasNC1988 762]

5 minutes ago, Ash. said:

See that's the problem. USCIS can't hope that we're going to become great households and support ourselves. If her income was 0 at a time, there was no choice but to have a co/joint sponsor. 

Same with my family. I was a stay at home mom for 7 years taking care of my disabled daughter making 0$ income with my father and my husband (fiance at the time) supporting me. 3 years into the marriage now, my husband I work full time and we make over 60k. USCIS couldn't have predicted that.

You're right, it is complicated, but there must be a system that is better than what we are working with. I don't think it does anything to accomplish what they want to accomplish. I know many embassy disallow co-sponsors for K-1 and it doesn't seem to be the worst thing in the world. 

[yuna628 9,666]

Just now, ThomasNC1988 said:

Sounds like you could support yourselves as a married couple and didn't need a sponsor? Anyhow, what is wrong with being a housewife or househusband if it suits you and your spouse is okay with it and makes enough to support you? What I am saying is people who obviously do not have the means to be successful shouldn't be allowed to avoid the rules by knowing someone who can sign. There should be an equal bar for everyone with no regard to who your family members and friends are. If you are living in the US without significant resources and can not earn 21k dollars a year you have no business bringing over someone else that has little resources and no ability to earn when they get here. It is not even all about protecting the US government from costs. Soooooooo many of these immigrants from poorer countries do not understand that the US is not the land of milk and honey they dream of and arrive in terrible situations where their spouse has no means to support them they way they need. I know when my wife arrived I didn't expect her to work right away or anything I understood that I would need to take care of a lot of her needs. Buy her winter clothes which aren't a thing in Thailand, every toiletry you could imagine, a car (it is not possible to work in my area without one), car insurance, a phone, all sorts of foods that I would never have. The expense is incredible and people should be prepared. A 20 year old me never could have taken care of all this and should not have been allowed under any circumstances to bring someone to this country to depend on me regardless of who I could get to cosponsor.

We needed a sponsor because the law states you're going to need one if we didn't have enough assets or savings to cover. Since I am the sponsor and not employed I certainly didn't pass the 125% test. That's where the cosponsor came in. That's certainly not to say we didn't have enough savings to cover any of our expenses, but in the eyes of the law it wasn't enough. We did what we had to do. I'm not the sort of person that enjoys asking for help, so even asking them to sign such a document was a big deal to me. But the USCIS doesn't care about all that. We cannot make people stop and think. We cannot make people read, or become educated, or even care. It comes down to personal liberty. If a person passes the test but gets themselves into a bad situation intentionally, stupidly, or by some unforeseen circumstances they either follow the law or don't. I'm not going to get mad and begrudge a person their right to be stupid. I can only look after my own situation, and pray the government isn't lazy and starts following their own laws. By all means go after the sponsors or cosponsors if there is abuse. But fact is there are some situations where a cosponsor absolutely works out just fine, and likely a lot more than we ever see on this forum. Forums usually draw in the 'hot messes', don't they?

 

My argument here is, you're kind of implying that a low educated foreigner that's not intending to work shouldn't be let in. But yet there are many low educated foreigner housewives or even househusbands, not working. Their USCs husbands do, and that works just fine for them. To me even a person with low education can be successful if they can pass the bar and be given opportunities.  It we start saying we want the foreigner to contribute immediately, we'll we're going to have to start changing rules to make it easier or faster to do that. Heck, when my husband had his EAD, employers didn't even know what that thing was - contributing to even more hiring delay. You can't fix stupid in a Democratic Republic. We all have the liberty to be smart or stupid. So if that's the case, there should be consequences if a person is stupid and can't follow the law.

 

11 minutes ago, Ash. said:

See that's the problem. USCIS can't hope that we're going to become great households and support ourselves. If her income was 0 at a time, there was no choice but to have a co/joint sponsor. 

Same with my family. I was a stay at home mom for 7 years taking care of my disabled daughter making 0$ income with my father and my husband (fiance at the time) supporting me. The CO recognized the issue and asked for a second Cosponsor (first made over 125%, the second made over 250%). 3 years into the marriage now, my husband I work full time and we make over 60k. USCIS couldn't have predicted that and they shouldn't bring people in on a hope.

It's doubtful the USCIS couldn't have predicted our situation either. Hubby went from a long period of no one hiring him to temp job to fulltime and is now the boss making 55k+ a year. Now with his degree and skillset, he could technically be making 100k a year, but the truth is he's got a job he's completely happy with, provides us good insurance, and they are good people down there. How many can say they genuinely enjoy their jobs? We've built credit and are thinking about buying a house. But would the USCIS thought that about us? Doubtful. I don't want the officer behind the paperwork having to judge a person like that. There's no evidence to suggest people in differing situations are going to turn out stupid or even smarter. You could be the most wealthy sponsor in the world and fall on hard times, while your seemingly sweet immigrant spouse turns into a monster. Or a poorer couple that still passes the test, does everything right but works hard takes on every opportunity they find eventually becomes a millionaire or a business owner. How do we even begin to judge that? How do we expect officers to assume or see into the future?

 

[ThomasNC1988 762]

28 minutes ago, Ash. said:

the

 

8 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

We

I guess that's the problem. I don't see it as they need to guess where you should be rather they should be assessing risk which isn't an easy prospect either and may not be fair.

[TBoneTX 45,205]

Perhaps the increased focus will help to increase awareness (granted that we can't fix "stupid").
 

How many posts have we read from K-1 couples who've said, "We couldn't apply for AOS because we had to pay for car repairs," or "Our marriage is strained because we can't afford to move out of my parents' house"?

 

A saying in business is "Your failure to plan does not constitute an emergency for me."  Translated into immigration cases, this might be "Your inability to support yourself should not make the taxpayers pay for your social services."  If the nature and gravity of financial responsibility are clearer at the start, at least a few cases with potential problems can be firmed up or prevented from proceeding.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

2 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Perhaps the increased focus will help to increase awareness (granted that we can't fix "stupid").
 

How many posts have we read from K-1 couples who've said, "We couldn't apply for AOS because we had to pay for car repairs," or "Our marriage is strained because we can't afford to move out of my parents' house"?

 

A saying in business is "Your failure to plan does not constitute an emergency for me."  Translated into immigration cases, this might be "Your inability to support yourself should not make the taxpayers pay for your social services."  If the nature and gravity of financial responsibility are clearer at the start, at least a few cases with potential problems can be firmed up or prevented from proceeding.

Shoot we see those posts at least once a week. And I imagine there's a good handful more of people who aren't posting but searching for that information on what to do.

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

Taking a harder look at the public charge concern seems perfectly reasonable and fair, but there are certainly some concerning things I am seeing so far in this rule (as many posters here have pointed out). I mean, I only make $35k a year...but I live in Birmingham, Alabama where cost of living is relatively low. Gas is $2.22 a gallon..finding a nice 2 bedroom apartment under $1000 is a breeze...etc. My husband is here on a K1 and our green card application is pending. We've been living comfortably so far with just my income. My credit score is considered "good" but I agree with others that taking credit scores into account is going too far. I would've been so much more stressed out during this process if this new rule applied to our case.

 

Most immigrants (legal or illegal, honestly) that I have ever met are incredibly hard-working...of course I know there are those that take advantage, but isn't that more of the "exception"? I've always had the impression that more citizens mooch off the government than people who come here for a better life. Even thousands of illegal immigrants pay taxes, since they get (wrongfully) hired by U.S. employers. I'm not condoning illegal immigration btw - just stating that the actual public charge issue seems exaggerated.

 

We've all heard dozens of stories (many in our own families!) along the lines of "my grandfather/grandmother came here with nothing but the clothes on his/her back and worked 70 hours a week to make a living and support their family" or "My *insert relative* didn't speak a word of English when they came here but started selling door to door to save enough to start their own business" and 100 different variations of the same thing because that is the epitome of the American dream and stories like this are used to inspire others (regardless of citizenship or immigration status). I don't think we should lose the spirit of this in our country, personally. 

 

That being said, I am all for enforcing the Affidavit of Support and holding people (citizen and immigrant alike) accountable. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by beloved_dingo

[Crazy Cat 41,745]

2 minutes ago, beloved_dingo said:

We've all heard dozens of stories (many in our own families!) along the lines of "my grandfather/grandmother came here with nothing but the clothes on his/her back and worked 70 hours a week to make a living and support their family" or "My *insert relative* didn't speak a word of English when they came here but started selling door to door to save enough to start their own business" and 100 different variations of the same thing because that is the epitome of the American dream and stories like this are used to inspire others (regardless of citizenship or immigration status). I don't think we should lose the spirit of this in our country, personally. 

Times have changed.........and the needs of the country have changed.

[JC&BS 75]

37 minutes ago, Scandi said:

That's how it is in Sweden, there's no such thing as a joint- or co-sponsor.

How long is the spousal visa process?

[yuna628 9,666]

7 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Perhaps the increased focus will help to increase awareness (granted that we can't fix "stupid").
 

How many posts have we read from K-1 couples who've said, "We couldn't apply for AOS because we had to pay for car repairs," or "Our marriage is strained because we can't afford to move out of my parents' house"?

 

A saying in business is "Your failure to plan does not constitute an emergency for me."  Translated into immigration cases, this might be "Your inability to support yourself should not make the taxpayers pay for your social services."  If the nature and gravity of financial responsibility are clearer at the start, at least a few cases with potential problems can be firmed up or prevented from proceeding.

To be sure we see those posts all the time. It boggles the mind. I try to encourage the younger ones to stop and think and at least get some savings, but it's like they will die inside without their spouse there immediately and oh well to consequences. And I get that, being in an LDR for 10 years or so you know? It's hard and painful... (though some of these kids have barely known each other.. but who are we to judge?). There are other more frightening situations I see where the foreign spouse is trapped at home unable to do anything because the USC spouse is forcing them into a bad place.

 

13 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

 

I guess that's the problem. I don't see it as they need to guess where you should be rather they should be assessing risk which isn't an easy prospect either and may not be fair.

Fairness and equality is of the utmost importance.. and I just see the potential here for it to be a problematic road to go down. An officer could think a person may turn out to be risky and be dead wrong. No it won't be an easy prospect, and I'm not sure that should even be in the best interest of their job.

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

6 minutes ago, missileman said:

Times have changed.........and the needs of the country have changed.

Immigrants are still an asset to this country. That has not changed. We'd all be hypocrites here if we believed otherwise.

[JeanneAdil 6,482]

1 hour ago, Ash. said:

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. 

wonder what his plans were going to be if the wife became pregnant

California got to be so expensive my late husband transfered out after 2 years there but we had a nice profit on the sale of the house