Final public charge rule

[billding 59]

53 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

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.

Okay. So I guess the other posters either werent able to get a SSN or enroll during the 30 day period?

 

Am I understanding it correctly that my fiance would need to get her SSN after she arrives before marriage not after?

 

If so, will the difference in her name (maiden vs married) be an issue for the insurance? Is this something I can ask the insurance company?

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

 

1 minute ago, TXBill said:

Am I understanding it correctly that my fiance would need to get her SSN after she arrives before marriage not after?

That seems to be the best route.....get the SSN as soon as possible after arrival.......I don't see it causing any issues with insurance company......spouses name can be changed on SS card after marriage.

[zaback21 29]

18 minutes ago, missileman said:

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

Nope. The interpretation of what constitutes a public charge has changed. It's not the same as it was before. 

 

Previously sponsors I-864 was good enough. Now it's not the defining factor. 

 

Same with policy changes that has ballooned petition and other processing times. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

9 hours ago, AnonIndia said:

Also people with wives having Asian accents should be denied too. Bad engrish accent is a hindrance to getting employment. Might become a public charge!

 

9 hours ago, AnonIndia said:

I am being facetious. I am just baffled by all the baby boomers with wives from poor Asian countries supporting this new public charge rule. If the intending immigrant's age, ability to work, education and English fluency were taken into account when these baby boomers were filing for their Asian wives of Nana Plaza, Bangkok fame they would have all been denied unless they the sponsors were making 250% above poverty line. Many are suggesting doing away with the Co-Sponsor or Joint Sponsor thing. Many sponsors living abroad with their spouses need co-sponsors and joint sponsors in order to qualify.  Incredible stupidity. 

So you think I am a Baby Boomer? Why do you think that, is it because I married a Filipina??? Sorry to bust your bubble but I am a ripe old man of 36 years old on last Friday. I am not talking about accents at all but learning simple basic English to get around and ask for something at the store. When I worked around Indians in the MENA region I learned enough Hindi to get my point across and to be respectable to other people that couldn't speak English that good. I can't tell you how many times my wife has had people start talking to her asking her questions because they didn't know what to do and they thought she spoke Spanish. The simple point is if you move to a country then you should learn at little bit of the linqua de franca.

[Lucky2Lucky 2,526]

8 hours ago, Nitas_man said:

You’d be right

 

https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

 

These are the numbers.  They’re pretty alarming.  It is past time to reverse them.  

 

If this change truly did not have any impact, there would be no uproar.  Every single one of us did or are sponsoring an immigrant.  You would never pass red face test and accuse any of us of being anti immigration but enough is enough.  We have no business bringing an immigrant to this country that we cannot support.  

Those are the numbers for ALL non citizens. LPR’s included. That is NOT solely  for undocumented individuals, as my previous post wrote. 

 

 

i completely agree we have no business bringing an immigrant if we can’t support-if you saw my previous posts in this thread they ALL say that.

 

This is the comment that that I referenced because people think it’s the undocumented individuals who are the majority burden on benefits which in reality is NOT the case: 

 

“”should concentrate more at illegals who “ suck “ a lot of tax payers money by all the benefits they get””

 

 

People are so misinformed and blame all the social issues on undocumented individuals when the reality is they think affidavit of supports don’t matter too much and what’s the big deal if my new wife gets Medicaid? She “unexpectedly” got pregnant and I’m disabled so I can’t work and yadda yadda yadda. If you choose to bring in an immigrant you take care of them. Just don’t get this confused that it’s just “illegals” that get welfare and are the biggest burden group.

 

 

[Unlockable 7,315]

47 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.

OK, a few things.

 

The race rhetoric is being thrown around too much. Many people here are not "white and rich" that would still get approved for a visa even with this new rule. Again, I have read and research and do not see it as a huge impact. You want to bring over extended family? Ensure you are established enough.

 

And I keep saying this, the F4 category is a luxury category that most countries in the world do not even offer. American is one of only a few countries where a person can petition their sibling. But with that said, there is a category that likely to take the brunt of changes, it will likely be F3, F4. I would rather changes effect those categories over immediate family categories like spouses and children. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

Nope. The interpretation of what constitutes a public charge has changed. It's not the same as it was before. 

 

Previously sponsors I-864 was good enough. Now it's not the defining factor. 

 

Same with policy changes that has ballooned petition and other processing times. 

What are you talking about? There are previous cases here on VJ where people were denied for risk of public charge.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Unlockable

[azblk 338]

14 minutes ago, Unlockable said:

OK, a few things.

 

The race rhetoric is being thrown around too much. Many people here are not "white and rich" that would still get approved for a visa even with this new rule. Again, I have read and research and do not see it as a huge impact. You want to bring over extended family? Ensure you are established enough.

 

And I keep saying this, the F4 category is a luxury category that most countries in the world do not even offer. American is one of only a few countries where a person can petition their sibling. But with that said, there is a category that likely to take the brunt of changes, it will likely be F3, F4. I would rather changes effect those categories over immediate family categories like spouses and children. 

 

 

What are you talking about? There are previous cases here on VJ where people were denied for risk of public charge.

How many immigrants have you seen from Africa or the poor parts of the world who have the money, the skills and employment history needed to overcome this new rule.

You say race is being overused here but the reality is this new rule disproportionately disadvantages minorities from the third world more than it does immigrants from western countries.

Luxury or not it is in the INA and it is legal to apply for it.

 

how many people have you seen here on VJ that have been denied on public charge grounds. Explain to me why when the state department started using this rule public charge denials increased more than 10X from barely 1000 in 2016 to over 12K in 2018.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour 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.

You can stop with the whole racist argument because being an immigrant is not a race. Not to mention it is a self defeating narrative that you have set yourself up for. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

47 minutes ago, zaback21 said:

Nope. The interpretation of what constitutes a public charge has changed. It's not the same as it was before. 

Previously sponsors I-864 was good enough. Now it's not the defining factor. 

Same with policy changes that has ballooned petition and other processing times. 

No it has not changed at all. I have seen people denied for being a public charge for as long as I have been on VJ. So please stop with the BS. If you want to have a good discussion we can meet in person and sit down to talk about it because I live in the Triangle as well. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

17 minutes ago, azblk said:

How many immigrants have you seen from Africa or the poor parts of the world who have the money, the skills and employment history needed to overcome this new rule.

You say race is being overused here but the reality is this new rule disproportionately disadvantages minorities from the third world more than it does immigrants from western countries.

Luxury or not it is in the INA and it is legal to apply for it.

 

how many people have you seen here on VJ that have been denied on public charge grounds. Explain to me why when the state department started using this rule public charge denials increased more than 10X from barely 1000 in 2016 to over 12K in 2018.

First off this rule does not really touch on the beneficiary as whole except for the usage of services and the credit score part. The rest of it is on the petitioner. So if the petitioner can not support someone to this country then they can either get a cosponsor or not bring someone in to the country. It is that simple and you can stop trying to use this argument that it's "racist" when in fact it isn't. 

 

The number has gone up for public charge denials because they have actually started enforcing the law which they weren't doing before. Quite frankly I am glad they are enforcing the law as already written. 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, zaback21 said:

I also see there are some pending lawsuits regarding that. 

Yeah lawsuits about a supposed racist law that has been on the books for DECADES

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

1 hour ago, zaback21 said:

Nope. The interpretation of what constitutes a public charge has changed. It's not the same as it was before. 

 

Previously sponsors I-864 was good enough. Now it's not the defining factor. 

 

Same with policy changes that has ballooned petition and other processing times. 

The Consulate Officer has ALWAYS had discretion when it come to public charge.....at least for years......There are multiple cases here on VJ which attest to that.

Edited August 14, 2019 by missileman

[Unlockable 7,315]

24 minutes ago, azblk said:

How many immigrants have you seen from Africa or the poor parts of the world who have the money, the skills and employment history needed to overcome this new rule.

 

I literally work with many of them! Nigeria, Uganda, or lead Accountant for our department is from Congo. And they have told me of the suffering their family went through back in their home country. One of them got a scholarship to a US University and has been here since. I have seen it, personally.

 

Quote

 

You say race is being overused here but the reality is this new rule disproportionately disadvantages minorities from the third world more than it does immigrants from western countries.

Luxury or not it is in the INA and it is legal to apply for it

 

Immigration to the America HAS DISPROPORTIONATELY DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE FROM UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES FOR MANY YEARS!!! Do you realize how many desperately poor people there are in the world today? More than 3 billion. That is more than the population of ALL OF THE ADVANCED COUNTRIES LIKE AMERICAN, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA COMBINED! The point is that not everybody is qualified to immigrate to the US. Point blank!

 

There are only a few ways a person can get to America and the most being through family. Those 3 billion plus people that are desperately poor do not have the education and or work skill to immigrate here. And even if the US, one day, decides to open its doors any and everyone, just 1% of the 3 billion that would want to immigrate here for a better life (approximately 30,000,000 people) would completely annihilate our social and economical structure.

 

You have to look at the big picture my friend. Immigration is not the answer to many of the world's problems. Changes need to be made. The US government is simply making sure that resources are protected. They are not stopping people from immigrating if they qualify. Like I said before, if you want to bring over you family, make sure you are established enough so that the person(s) you are bringing do not become a public charge.

 

Quote

how many people have you seen here on VJ that have been denied on public charge grounds. Explain to me why when the state department started using this rule public charge denials increased more than 10X from barely 1000 in 2016 to over 12K in 2018.

Been on this site since 2014. Seen enough to know that it has happened before. If I do a search (I'm at work and can't 100% commit to searching VJ) I can provide you those threads. There were a couple I remember a few weeks ago. The state department can use this rule to try to curb people using government sponsored benefits. It is not free money. Do you remember the welfare reform in the 90s? It had to happen. At some point resources get over used and changes need to be made. This isn't the first time the government has changed things to curb people from using welfare benefits. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Unlockable

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

43 minutes ago, azblk said:

You say race is being overused here but the reality is this new rule disproportionately disadvantages minorities from the third world more than it does immigrants from western countries.

Disproportion does not necessarily equate to racism or discrimination....

Edited August 14, 2019 by missileman

[JeanneAdil 6,585]

20 hours 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. 

My issue is Congress is suppose to set the rules and laws and Immigration has had problems for over 20 years and Congress has not appointed a committee to study the issues .   they just sit back and let someone else try and look stupid when he or she does.