Final public charge rule

[Nitas_man 3,100]

17 minutes ago, AnonIndia said:

Obvious answer is to deny any welfare to family based immigrants since they are already sponsored by individual US citizens. New law basically makes you double think who you fall in love with because they might not be fluent in English and they might not be eligible to live in the US with you. New law makes it so that only the upper middle class can afford to fall in love with whoever they want in the world. Obviously rich men won't have any problem importing young new wives from eastern european and Asian countries. US citizens of European descent constantly bemoan their declining birth rates but refrain from having kids unless the conditions are just right. Then when new immigrants have kids just for the joy of having kids they (removed) moan about white genocide, the browning of America and how they are being replaced.  

Plenty of self-sufficient immigrants out there.  You just don’t hear their voices.  They don’t complain, they work and support themselves.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nitas_man

[DerekJ 0]

On 8/12/2019 at 7:38 PM, Heather&Miguel said:

Okay. I understand the "not using public benefits"portion of all of this. I agree with that as it's our job as sponsors to take care of our beneficiaries. My fiance won't even receive his K1 visa until Oct/Nov and by the time we marry and apply for his green card, we may not get it, according to these new regulations. The credit checks and 250% over poverty level is too much. This excludes (and I'm sure on purpose) those coming here from poorer countries, who also have lower income families that are supporting them. I make enough to support both of us until he can start working legally but not at 250%! This reeks of not only racism but of class-ism as well.

That is exactly the point of all this.

[Mrsjackson 300]

1 hour ago, Nitas_man said:

I’m sure you do.  

 

“So what” is a two-way street

I like to look at both sides of any situation. That’s all. 

[SCOREAU 36]

4 hours ago, geowrian said:

The 250+% threshold is to be considered as a heavily-weighted positive factor. The 125% level remains the same.

Totality of circumstances has been around for decades.

I understand, now. So they're saying if you can satisfy the 250% poverty level x 3 for using assets ( $54000 x 3 in household, for a spouse immigrant ), then it really helps.

[billding 59]

14 hours ago, yuna628 said:

 I'd like to see the K1 - AOS process more streamlined or combined. But ultimately with the extreme delay waiting around for an EAD or the green card is a problem. It was also eye-opening to see how many employers just didn't know what an EAD was or didn't want to hire because there was an EAD instead of a green card.

 

Also... if obtaining health insurance is now going to be considered a weighty factor, you have seen the posts from couples on this forum (almost nearly daily) that weren't aware about getting an SSN, got it too late, or the SSA somehow screwed the pooch on that process, and then their company HR or the insurance employee won't sign them up because they don't understand the rules and now it's too late for open or special enrollment. I'm sure the government isn't thinking about that little hiccup though. If there was a lot of red tape cut down and streamlined processes, I think some things would ease the burden.

 

13 hours ago, beloved_dingo said:

My husband and I are in this exact situation. Due to various circumstances and my husband's lack of SSN (even though we tried repeatedly), I can't add him to my insurance with my employer until open enrollment. To add to that, it will cost me over $500/month to have him on my insurance - a huge burden if he is not yet able to legally work.

Hi, health insurance for my fiancee is one of our concerns. I have good health insurance from my work but it seems from your post that it's not easy to add a spouse.

 

How is it done? Also, can you explain the SSN thing? I understand that we she should get one right away, is this correct?

 

Thanks

[azblk 338]

6 hours ago, geowrian said:

The 250+% threshold is to be considered as a heavily-weighted positive factor. The 125% level remains the same.

Totality of circumstances has been around for decades.

Even if the totality of circumstances has been around forever the focus has been on the 125% level. The didn’t focus on the job prospects of intending immigrants as long as the sponsors made over the 125% level, now they are going to focus on that too and it will literally eliminate the ability to sponsor parents whose age is above the retirement age. 

Most people are focusing on the benefits part and that is just a shiny object to distract from the other parts like prospective immigrants job history, age, English abilities and skills. 

This is a round about way to get the merit based immigration system they have been desiring but could not get from Congress.

[zaback21 29]

On 8/13/2019 at 9:29 AM, geowrian said:

Which of those negative factors did not exist 24 hours ago?

 

Yes the rules have changed. No, the sky is not falling. The overall framework remains the same.

Yes there are now new negative factors that didn't exist 24 hrs ago. If one would take the time to read it, they will know. And yes the sky is falling.

 

So what hasn't changed:

 

When an immigrant applies for LPR, the petitioner has to proof (125% of FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES ) they can support them through I-864 (AOS). If not, they can seek joint sponsor. That is all fine and most of us agree with it as it should prevent LPR from becoming public charge.  This is how Green card was granted for decades. 

 

So what will change:

 

Previously an intending immigrant wouldn't have to  show or proof they have education, financial resources, etc as mentioned below: https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

Now they need to fill Form I-944 http://lallegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/I944-FRM-PubCharge-60Day-09262018.pdf

 

(a)  (U) Age;

(b)  (U) Health;

(c)  (U) Family status;

(d)  (U) Assets, resources, and financial status; and

(e)  (U) Education and skills.

 

(a) Now if a petitioner wants to sponsor a parent over 61 or child under 18, they will be deemed negative factors. Meaning, now it will be hard to bring your parents or kids to USA which effectively makes it difficult to get Green card grant in IR1 cases.

 

(b) Health wont change as one still needs to proof they have satisfactory health as before.

 

(c) People with more dependent will be viewed as having more public charge. 

 

(d) This part is where it all changes. An intending LPR was never asked to show or proof financial assets/resources at 250% of FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES which would come up to $24,980 per applicant. How many LPR we know earns that much? One needs to consider US is one of the richest country in the world and there are over hundred countries on earth where per capita earning is 5% of that and one can still do fine. An apple in Africa, Asia or Latin America doesn't cost the same in USA. So, asking an intending LPR to show $24,980 is a rule created to say if you are rich, only then you can immigrate. What about people who just turned 18? Why it isn't good enough for sponsors financial guarantee anymore? How is that not classism? 

 

(e) Was education ever considered negative public charge? So why is it now. How about old parents who might be quite successful in life without having a degree? 

 

The thing is, all of these are not defined but based on case officers discretion. We all know how it will go for people from non-western countries. 

 

If changes are being applied, I presume 95-98% of intending LPR won't qualify. The denial rate could reach unprecedented numbers when compared to now/previously where unless you have committed major crime or failed health test, you are guaranteed LPR grant 100% of the time.  

Edited August 14, 2019 by zaback21

[jasonlzak 173]

34 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

Yes there are now new negative factors that didn't exist 24 hrs ago. If one would take the time to read it, they will know. And yes the sky is falling.

 

So what hasn't changed:

 

When an immigrant applies for LPR, the petitioner has to proof (125% of FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES ) they can support them through I-864 (AOS). If not, they can seek joint sponsor. That is all fine and most of us agree with it as it should prevent LPR from becoming public charge.  This is how Green card was granted for decades. 

 

So what will change:

 

Previously an intending immigrant wouldn't have to  show or proof they have education, financial resources, etc as mentioned below: https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

Now they need to fill Form I-944 http://lallegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/I944-FRM-PubCharge-60Day-09262018.pdf

 

(a)  (U) Age;

(b)  (U) Health;

(c)  (U) Family status;

(d)  (U) Assets, resources, and financial status; and

(e)  (U) Education and skills.

 

(a) Now if a petitioner wants to sponsor a parent over 61 or child under 18, they will be deemed negative factors. Meaning, now it will be hard to bring your parents or kids to USA which effectively makes it difficult to get Green card grant in IR1 cases.

 

(b) Health wont change as one still needs to proof they have satisfactory health as before.

 

(c) People with more dependent will be viewed as having more public charge. 

 

(d) This part is where it all changes. An intending LPR was never asked to show or proof financial assets/resources at 250% of FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES which would come up to $24,980 per applicant. How many LPR we know earns that much? One needs to consider US is one of the richest country in the world and there are over hundred countries on earth where per capita earning is 5% of that and one can still do fine. An apple in Africa, Asia or Latin America doesn't cost the same in USA. So, asking an intending LPR to show $24,980 is a rule created to say if you are rich, only then you can immigrate. What about people who just turned 18? Why it isn't good enough for sponsors financial guarantee anymore? How is that not classism? 

 

(e) Was education ever considered negative public charge? So why is it now. How about old parents who might be quite successful in life without having a degree? 

 

The thing is, all of these are not defined but based on case officers discretion. We all know how it will go for people from non-western countries. 

 

If changes are being applied, I presume 95-98% of intending LPR won't qualify. The denial rate could reach unprecedented numbers when compared to now/previously where unless you have committed major crime or failed health test, you are guaranteed LPR grant 100% of the time.  

They have been doing that to immigrants who'd been adjusticated at the foreign consular under the new "FAM public charge rule" which quietly went into effect in January 2018. Consequently, there were approx 14,000 visas denied under that so called "likely to become a public charge" for that fiscal year. This new rule is expecting to be applied for petitions filling in the US and are adjusticated by USCIS.

 

True, under this rule, average parents of average Americans literally have no chance. Unless they are rich and white, I don't want to use the word "White" here, but one can hardly deny it's all this administration wants.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

2 hours ago, TXBill said:

 

Hi, health insurance for my fiancee is one of our concerns. I have good health insurance from my work but it seems from your post that it's not easy to add a spouse.

 

How is it done? Also, can you explain the SSN thing? I understand that we she should get one right away, is this correct?

 

Thanks

Hi 

 

Marriage is a life changing event that opens enrollment for 30 days and that is when she can be added.

 

They can add her pending SS number if she does not have one and is in the process of applying for one.

[zaback21 29]

14 minutes ago, jasonlzak said:

They have been doing that to immigrants who'd been adjusticated at the foreign consular under the new "FAM public charge rule" which quietly went into effect in January 2018. Consequently, there were approx 14,000 visas denied under that so called "likely to become a public charge" for that fiscal year. This new rule is expecting to be applied for petitions filling in the US and are adjusticated by USCIS.

 

True, under this rule, average parents of average Americans literally have no chance. Unless they are rich and white, I don't want to use the word "White" here, but one can hardly deny it's all this administration wants.

Just reading it now. Wow dIdn't know that was the case. The good old days of submitting petition, wait long years but finally receiving grant seems to be over. Unless you are rich and from privileged countries, now you can be denied green card based on discretion of consulate which has no  finite definition but all on what they think will be.  

 

I also see there are some pending lawsuits regarding that. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by zaback21

[azblk 338]

45 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

Yes there are now new negative factors that didn't exist 24 hrs ago. If one would take the time to read it, they will know. And yes the sky is falling.

 

So what hasn't changed:

 

When an immigrant applies for LPR, the petitioner has to proof (125% of FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES ) they can support them through I-864 (AOS). If not, they can seek joint sponsor. That is all fine and most of us agree with it as it should prevent LPR from becoming public charge.  This is how Green card was granted for decades. 

 

So what will change:

 

Previously an intending immigrant wouldn't have to  show or proof they have education, financial resources, etc as mentioned below: https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

Now they need to fill Form I-944 http://lallegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/I944-FRM-PubCharge-60Day-09262018.pdf

 

(a)  (U) Age;

(b)  (U) Health;

(c)  (U) Family status;

(d)  (U) Assets, resources, and financial status; and

(e)  (U) Education and skills.

 

(a) Now if a petitioner wants to sponsor a parent over 61 or child under 18, they will be deemed negative factors. Meaning, now it will be hard to bring your parents or kids to USA which effectively makes it difficult to get Green card grant in IR1 cases.

 

(b) Health wont change as one still needs to proof they have satisfactory health as before.

 

(c) People with more dependent will be viewed as having more public charge. 

 

(d) This part is where it all changes. An intending LPR was never asked to show or proof financial assets/resources at 250% of FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES which would come up to $24,980 per applicant. How many LPR we know earns that much? One needs to consider US is one of the richest country in the world and there are over hundred countries on earth where per capita earning is 5% of that and one can still do fine. An apple in Africa, Asia or Latin America doesn't cost the same in USA. So, asking an intending LPR to show $24,980 is a rule created to say if you are rich, only then you can immigrate. What about people who just turned 18? Why it isn't good enough for sponsors financial guarantee anymore? How is that not classism? 

 

(e) Was education ever considered negative public charge? So why is it now. How about old parents who might be quite successful in life without having a degree? 

 

The thing is, all of these are not defined but based on case officers discretion. We all know how it will go for people from non-western countries. 

 

If changes are being applied, I presume 95-98% of intending LPR won't qualify. The denial rate could reach unprecedented numbers when compared to now/previously where unless you have committed major crime or failed health test, you are guaranteed LPR grant 100% of the time.  

Another thing not being talked about is another rule in the pipeline at the justice department that makes an LPR de-portable if they become a public charge within 5 years of getting a green card. With this massive expansion of the definition of what a public charge some people who are already LPR's will get caught up in this. 

 

A scenario not so far fetched is someone who gains LPR and then one or two years later gets health problems or in an accident at work that leaves them disabled. If they apply for and receive SSI or disability - they can now be classified as a public charge and that makes them de-portable.

[jasonlzak 173]

It's not the end, the next administration can overhaul this racist rule. I just feel sorry for those F4 visas, who's been waiting for more than a decade and become current right at the time of this nightmare administration, so they will be considered as a public charge and get visa denied, I can't even think of it.

[zaback21 29]

9 minutes ago, jasonlzak said:

It's not the end, the next administration can overhaul this racist rule. I just feel sorry for those F4 visas, who's been waiting for more than a decade and become current right at the time of this nightmare administration, so they will be considered as a public charge and get visa denied, I can't even think of it.

Lets hope so. But considering how the world's sociopolitical situations and government has changed in UK, Italy, Austria, Brazil, Australia, Philippines, India and so on, it is hard to be optimistic for future.  

Edited August 14, 2019 by zaback21

[Crazy Cat 41,745]

self deleted...

Edited August 14, 2019 by missileman

[Crazy Cat 41,745]

26 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

now you can be denied green card based on discretion of consulate which has no  finite definition but all on what they think will be.  

That has been the case for years........