Final public charge rule

[KlametJourney 11]

Reading the Boundless explained version of the Public Charge Rule does appear that this rule won't impact anyone who are applying visa from aboard unless they will later seek AOS in the state as this rule is only meant for DHS and DOS has it on own rule, which was last update January of this year. 

[JeanneAdil 6,583]

26 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.

Not sure many of these K1 (or even CR1 ) cases look up the poverty guidelines when they think to apply and i would think poverty guidelines are just that/ hard to live on /living paycheck to paycheck

 

but we are a country of immigrants and i don't know when this administration started thinking to focus on legal when they can't even handle illegal

they think to send all 11 million back???? like who is going to come up with the manpower and funds to get that done?   someone needs to fix the fixable and get together with all pubic figures to handle the Unfixable

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

20 minutes ago, missileman said:

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

Now it is looked down on to even remotely talk about assimilating or learning English

[Ash.1101 1,756]

2 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

Not sure many of these K1 (or even CR1 ) cases look up the poverty guidelines when they think to apply and i would think poverty guidelines are just that/ hard to live on /living paycheck to paycheck

 

but we are a country of immigrants and i don't know when this administration started thinking to focus on legal when they can't even handle illegal

they think to send all 11 million back???? like who is going to come up with the manpower and funds to get that done?   someone needs to fix the fixable and get together with all pubic figures to handle the Unfixable

There isn't a reason why they can't look at both at the same time. I would be far more worried for the country if it could only focus on one topic at a time. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

8 hours ago, malenonimmigrant said:

I'm currently still waiting on the removal of conditions (I-797) on my conditional green card. It's been a year since I submitted my removal of conditions application so I should be hearing back soon before this rule goes into effect in October. Will I be fine? Furthermore, will this affect people looking to naturalize for US citizenship down the line? Can they apply the public charge rule against people to file their naturalization application for citizenship?

You are completely fine. This entire thing would only potentially impact future applications/immigration. No need to worry. 

[Mdot 0]

Can someone shed light on to this.

Medicaid is considered public charge.

 

 

What about Obamacare/Affordable care act?

[Just Paul 4,595]

6 minutes ago, Mdot said:

Medicaid is considered public charge.

it would be https://www.ilrc.org/public-charge

 

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

16 minutes ago, Mdot said:

Can someone shed light on to this.

Medicaid is considered public charge.- Some Medicaid is.  See below

 

 

What about Obamacare/Affordable care act?- No.  See below.

https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/public-charge-policies-for-immigrants-implications-for-health-coverage/

 

"What are the Key Changes in the Rule?

The rule broadens the programs that the federal government will consider in public charge determinations to include previously excluded health, nutrition, and housing programs. The rule redefines a public charge as an “alien who receives one or more public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months),” and defines public benefits to include federal, state, or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance and certain health, nutrition, and housing programs that were previously excluded from public charge determinations, including non-emergency Medicaid for non-pregnant adults, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and several housing programs (see Appendix Table 1).

⁷The rule does not include CHIP or subsidies for Affordable Care Act Marketplace coverage as public benefits. Public charge determinations will only consider use of benefits by the individual and will not take into account benefits used by other family members, including children, of the person for whom officials are making the determination.⁸

Edited August 13, 2019 by missileman

[Lemonslice 4,922]

34 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.

I think people should have to demonstrate they already have the funds to pay for AOS. Pay a security deposit, or any kind of system... It's ridiculous (and negligent) to not be able to send the AOS for months/years.  

 

 

[geowrian 22,337]

4 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

I think people should have to demonstrate they already have the funds to pay for AOS. Pay a security deposit, or any kind of system... It's ridiculous (and negligent) to not be able to send the AOS for months/years. 

Counterpoint (although it is a fringe case, it does happen): What about people who don't intend to AOS? They just want to marry in the US and return home, and don't have access to a tourist visa.

Edited August 13, 2019 by geowrian

[Lemonslice 4,922]

Just now, geowrian said:

Counterpoint (although it is a fringe case, it does happen): What about people who don't intend to AOS? They just want to marry in the US and return home, and don't have access to a tourist visa.

Can still demonstrate they have the funds to AOS (amount is probably lower than what it will cost to travel and visit as a tourist).   

[Ash.1101 1,756]

22 minutes ago, Lemonslice said:

I think people should have to demonstrate they already have the funds to pay for AOS. Pay a security deposit, or any kind of system... It's ridiculous (and negligent) to not be able to send the AOS for months/years.  

 

 

That would depend on if they would take the foreign fiances assets into consideration. My husband came in on K-1 with 14k$, where as my available money was what ever he sent to me.

With that said, I do agree with showing that. But... I mean realistically that's what being 125% of the poverty line should do. I know it doesn't take in consideration net income and only gross, but ideally they feel if you make that much then you should be able to save a little over 1000$.

There's always been four types of AOSers.

The ones that do it and can afford it/have saved for it.
The ones who hit a streak of bad luck and can't afford it. (These would be the people who could probably prove they have the money for AOS at interview, but then end up having to spend it prior to AOS)
The ones who didn't even know they had to afford it. (Adding something like this into the interview process would make them aware)
The ones who don't care and don't want their spouses AOS'd.  (Wouldn't really affect them because they probably have the funds the show and probably still won't AOS their spouse.)

Edited August 13, 2019 by Ash.

[yuna628 9,687]

27 minutes ago, Ash. said:

There isn't a reason why they can't look at both at the same time. I would be far more worried for the country if it could only focus on one topic at a time. 

I feel to some degree that we have always only been able to handle one thing at a time or really not handle anything at all. Since they cannot handle the illegal issue, I am sort of suspicious that is why they have moved into this direction.

25 minutes ago, Mdot said:

Can someone shed light on to this.

Medicaid is considered public charge.

 

 

What about Obamacare/Affordable care act?

Initial drafts of this change way back when, did actually mention Obamacare. This was immediately concerning to me, as I saw it a huge opening for lawsuits that the government would absolutely lose and create a huge quandary of problems I don't think this administration could handle. This current draft doesn't seem to mention Obamacare. It has never been considered a public charge to begin with. However, there is some confusing wording - in particular it mentions if the applicant has private insurance or not as a factor of weight.

49 minutes ago, missileman said:

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

I'm not so sure of that. If the administration changes hands in a new election, and all these rules are changed once more - is it the needs of the country "changing" again, or is it the needs of an administration? Sorry, I'm a tad cynical these days. I would prefer that Congress address these issues, rather than administrations.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I would prefer that Congress address these issues, rather than administrations.

That would be the proper thing..........but many of the current Congress folks don't want a fix.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I feel to some degree that we have always only been able to handle one thing at a time or really not handle anything at all. Since they cannot handle the illegal issue, I am sort of suspicious that is why they have moved into this direction.

 

They had been talking about this since about March I believe. Most of us didn't think it would actually get signed through, but looks like it did.

I think there's def always plans on the backburner and this may have been one of them.