Final public charge rule

[Nitas_man 3,100]

1 hour ago, Luckycuds said:

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.

 

 

Yes these numbers reflect all categories.

 

I have said nothing about illegals.  This site and this thread are about legal immigration.  The issue of illegals come into this discussion based on the contribution of their legal USC children to the reported public charge numbers.

 

My daughter was not born here.  She was born in the middle east.  She was not awarded citizenship there.  I had to go apply for and get her US citizenship.  

 

Illegals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and they also, as we did, should be expected to go to their respective consulates and pass their citizenship on based on their country of orgin.  This would close that loophole nicely.  

 

 

 

 

[Limonata 46]

There’s a lot of debate on this topic as who is affected by the change. I tried to read the 800 page document but could not file anything relating to those that will be applying for ROC. Can someone shed some light for me here? 

[Crazy Cat 41,745]

1 minute ago, Limonata said:

There’s a lot of debate on this topic as who is affected by the change. I tried to read the 800 page document but could not file anything relating to those that will be applying for ROC. Can someone shed some light for me here? 

I have not seen anything which indicates Removal of Conditions filers will be affected.

Edited August 14, 2019 by missileman

[Unlockable 7,314]

17 minutes ago, missileman said:

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.

Exactly. I am seeing it everywhere (other forums and such) where all of a sudden this is a new thing.

 

20 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

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. 

 

Exactly, people are making it seem like this all falls on the immigrant. If a person is petitioning someone, they should be responsible for helping the immigrant assimilate to America.

 

16 minutes ago, missileman said:

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

Agreed. The point is that many can't make it to the US regardless of race, religion, or education.

 

Look, we know there are 3 primary ways to immigrate to America..

1. Money

2. Work/Education

3. Family

There are literally billions of people in the world that do not qualify under those main categories. An extremely poor person in a impoverish country that has never set foot in a school and has not even one family member already in the US, simply would not be able to immigrate.  There is no path for them to be able to qualify. So when people start talking about how this new rule is leaving out so many people in the world, the truth is that most people in the world are not eligible to immigrate. And it has been like that for decades.

 

The US is shifting and manual labor, production, and manufacturing jobs are declining. There used to be a time when a person can graduate high school and walk into a steel mill and work there for 30 years before retiring. It is not like that anymore. Layoffs are all too common and more companies are outsourcing production. Coal miners are fighting to bring the industry back but there will be a time where there are no more coal left to mine. What are they gonna do then? Keep hiring simply because that is how it was in the past?

 

Once the backlash from all of this settles we will see that this will not be as huge of an impact as the media is making it.

 

And here are examples of VJ members who had their cases denied for public charge BEFORE this new rule went into affect. Again, this is nothing new.

 

 

[Nitas_man 3,100]

2 hours 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.

Why is this racist?  

[beloved_dingo 1,976]

1 hour ago, TXBill said:

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?

Yes you should absolutely apply for the SSN as soon as possible. Most people do not experience an issue, but we were one of the unlucky ones. My husband arrived on May 17th, and we went to the Social Security office the first time on May 22nd. We were told we were there "too soon" (not true) and to come back in a week or so. We got married on May 24th, and went back to the Social Security office on June 6th. At this time, we were told that their system was saying that my husband was not eligible for an SSN, and that the reason was because we got married so our "K1 visa is not valid" (also not true). The third time we went (to a different office) it was July 5th and we immediately asked for manual verification (search "manual verification" here on VJ for more info about this) but here we are at August 14th and we still have no SSN. The "window" to add my husband to health insurance due to marriage ended on June 24th, so we are stuck for now on that point. If you have any issues on your first (and hopefully, only) visit to the Social Security office, ask that they do manual verification ASAP. I was SO angry when I realized the guy we dealt with the first time just basically made up an excuse rather than letting us know there was a mismatch in the system.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

Some important information: 

 

PUBLIC CHARGE BONDS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS APPLICANTS

 

An alien who DHS has determined to be inadmissible based on public charge grounds may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted at the discretion of the Secretary upon giving a suitable and proper bond.

 

In this rule, DHS proposes to clarify when an alien seeking adjustment of status will be permitted to post a public charge bond under DHS's authority outlined in sections 103 and 213 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103 and 1183. Additionally, as reflected below, DHS proposes to establish a new minimum bond amount of $10,000 (adjusted annually for inflation), explain the circumstances under which a public charge bond will be cancelled, as well as establish specific conditions under which a public charge bond will be breached.

 

If an alien successfully posts a public charge bond in the amount and under the conditions specified in the form instructions and USCIS notice, USCIS will continue to adjudicate the alien's application for adjustment of status and will grant such application if all eligibility criteria are met.

 

A public charge bond must remain in effect until the alien naturalizes or otherwise obtains U.S. citizenship, permanently departs the United States, or dies, until the bond is substituted with another bond, or until the bond is otherwise cancelled by DHS.[641] During this period, as a condition of the bond, an alien on whose behalf a public charge bond has been accepted agrees to not receive public benefits, as defined in 8 CFR 212.21(b), after the alien's adjustment of status to that of a legal permanent resident and until the bond is cancelled according to proposed 8 CFR 212.21(g).

 

A bond would be considered breached if the alien has received public benefits, as defined in proposed 8 CFR 212.21(b), after the alien's adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident and until the public charge bond is cancelled under 8 CFR 213.1(g). 

 

If USCIS determines that the bond has been breached, DHS proposes that USCIS would collect on the bond in full, meaning the total monetary amount of the bond as liquidated damages. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Allaboutwaiting

[yuna628 9,666]

5 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

In general it is usually easy to add your spouse to your health insurance, whether it is via your workplace, or privately, or even using Obamacare. However you need to keep the following in mind (and this is where trouble befalls many couples): It is NOT required by LAW to provide a SSN in order to obtain insurance. There's many reasons why this is but that is what the law says. However, that does not matter to stupid people. And unfortunately you will find a lot of stupid people working behind the counter at your HR, your insurance rep, heck... even at the SSA itself. And perhaps that's unfair, and perhaps it's mean to say stupid... but I have seen too many times over the years, couples get screwed over by employees that don't understand the law, especially when it comes to an immigrant and an SSN. You don't need to provide it, but they will often demand it or else.. and it's at that point, if by some circumstances you haven't got one, you'll have to prepare for a fight. So here is what a K1 couple should do about an SSN:

 

1) Arrive with your visa. Yay! Check your I94 online and print it out. Make sure it is correct. If it's not.. you'll have a problem.

2) If all is good. Maybe wait a little bit and head to your SSA with all documents needed. Take a print out of their own rules about how a K1 may obtain an SSN if the employee doesn't believe you. If they get huffy, ask for a supervisor.

3)If you are lucky and employee is good, the process is simple and you'll receive your SSN in the mail in a few days. It will have a restriction on it. That's fine. Its still a valid number, you just need work authorization as proof to use this number for work. You'll have that once you apply for AOS+EAD+AP and your EAD arrives. When the green card comes, you can go back to the SSA and remove this restriction. It will look like any other person's SSN card then.

4) You may not wait too long to obtain the SSN. Do so and it won't matter. They will not give it to you.

5) Get married. Yay!

6) Add your spouse to health insurance as soon as possible (in certain scenarios you have a limited window to do this.. and some don't realize it). Again you can do this without an SSN. But you'll have a lot less pain and suffering if you've got it.

 

Anyway this is the procedure that worked for us. I added my husband to my private insurance soon after we married, since he had already had his SSN by this point. The insurance company did not even ask for an SSN, as the employee did understand the situation anyway. Later on they did send a letter asking for this info - but keep in mind by law you do not have to do this either. When my husband started receiving employer based insurance, we moved over to that.

 

1 hour ago, JeanneAdil said:

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.

 

This is my issue as well. Technically this administration has made very large changes to the rules.. rules that are supposed to be under the authority of congress to deal with. This means, changes like this are not ''shifting needs of the US'' but shifting whims of an administration, which can be easily changed when a new one steps in. These are people's lives and rules that need certainty. Congress needs to do their dang jobs.

21 minutes ago, Limonata said:

There’s a lot of debate on this topic as who is affected by the change. I tried to read the 800 page document but could not file anything relating to those that will be applying for ROC. Can someone shed some light for me here? 

ROC does not have anything do with public charge forms. For instance when filing ROC you don't fill out an I-864. You do provide them tax returns and other info.. but nothing is involved with the sponsor or cosponsor.. the couple ROCs on their own terms. I cannot see this impacting ROC, and I believe we'd see greater outrage if that was the case. Still.. keep your eyes and ears open.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

11 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. 

Hopefully not. It does not classify as applying for a new green card. I don't know for sure. 

I’m not a boomer either LOL

 

I’m quite happy with heavily weighting the 250% poverty line and health insurance for sponsors dependents

 

Stats say there are plenty of people who sponsored immigrants who had no business doing so.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Limonata 46]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

In general it is usually easy to add your spouse to your health insurance, whether it is via your workplace, or privately, or even using Obamacare. However you need to keep the following in mind (and this is where trouble befalls many couples): It is NOT required by LAW to provide a SSN in order to obtain insurance. There's many reasons why this is but that is what the law says. However, that does not matter to stupid people. And unfortunately you will find a lot of stupid people working behind the counter at your HR, your insurance rep, heck... even at the SSA itself. And perhaps that's unfair, and perhaps it's mean to say stupid... but I have seen too many times over the years, couples get screwed over by employees that don't understand the law, especially when it comes to an immigrant and an SSN. You don't need to provide it, but they will often demand it or else.. and it's at that point, if by some circumstances you haven't got one, you'll have to prepare for a fight. So here is what a K1 couple should do about an SSN:

 

1) Arrive with your visa. Yay! Check your I94 online and print it out. Make sure it is correct. If it's not.. you'll have a problem.

2) If all is good. Maybe wait a little bit and head to your SSA with all documents needed. Take a print out of their own rules about how a K1 may obtain an SSN if the employee doesn't believe you. If they get huffy, ask for a supervisor.

3)If you are lucky and employee is good, the process is simple and you'll receive your SSN in the mail in a few days. It will have a restriction on it. That's fine. Its still a valid number, you just need work authorization as proof to use this number for work. You'll have that once you apply for AOS+EAD+AP and your EAD arrives. When the green card comes, you can go back to the SSA and remove this restriction. It will look like any other person's SSN card then.

4) You may not wait too long to obtain the SSN. Do so and it won't matter. They will not give it to you.

5) Get married. Yay!

6) Add your spouse to health insurance as soon as possible (in certain scenarios you have a limited window to do this.. and some don't realize it). Again you can do this without an SSN. But you'll have a lot less pain and suffering if you've got it.

 

Anyway this is the procedure that worked for us. I added my husband to my private insurance soon after we married, since he had already had his SSN by this point. The insurance company did not even ask for an SSN, as the employee did understand the situation anyway. Later on they did send a letter asking for this info - but keep in mind by law you do not have to do this either. When my husband started receiving employer based insurance, we moved over to that.

 

This is my issue as well. Technically this administration has made very large changes to the rules.. rules that are supposed to be under the authority of congress to deal with. This means, changes like this are not ''shifting needs of the US'' but shifting whims of an administration, which can be easily changed when a new one steps in. These are people's lives and rules that need certainty. Congress needs to do their dang jobs.

ROC does not have anything do with public charge forms. For instance when filing ROC you don't fill out an I-864. You do provide them tax returns and other info.. but nothing is involved with the sponsor or cosponsor.. the couple ROCs on their own terms. I cannot see this impacting ROC, and I believe we'd see greater outrage if that was the case. Still.. keep your eyes and ears open.

Thank u for this! There’s a lot of confusion because some say that even those applying for citizenship maybe affected as well. This rule can evolve for sure but at least it’s clearer to me now

[Limonata 46]

34 minutes ago, missileman said:

I have not seen anything which indicates Removal of Conditions filers will be affected.

Thanks missileman for the clarification!

[yuna628 9,666]

2 minutes ago, Limonata said:

Thank u for this! There’s a lot of confusion because some say that even those applying for citizenship maybe affected as well. This rule can evolve for sure but at least it’s clearer to me now

Well I suppose if while ROCing or filing citizenship they find out about the immigrant's use of benefits they shouldn't, there could be an unknown potential there.

[Crazy Cat 41,745]

10 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

I’m not a boomer either LOL

 

I’m quite happy with heavily weighting the 250% poverty line and health insurance for sponsors dependents

 

Stats say there are plenty of people who sponsored immigrants who had no business doing so.  

 

My question to the people are screaming racism is this:  Is it unreasonable to expect those entering the US to be able to support themselves ?  Is it unreasonable to protect the US taxpayer (who are already over-taxed, imo)?

[Nitas_man 3,100]

6 minutes ago, missileman said:

My question to the people are screaming racism is this:  Is it unreasonable to expect those entering the US to be able to support themselves ?  Is it unreasonable to protect the US taxpayer (who are already over-taxed, imo)?

Ask our good neighbor Mexico.

 

You want PR there, you have to either show income from outside of 2000+ a month or bring a bank account with $100,000

 

I’m certainly not drawing a conclusion from those rules that everyone from Mexico is a racist.  Mexico just doesn’t want immigrants who can’t support themselves.

 

Lot of those “rich boomers” retire down there LOL.

 

Poor boomers are not qualified.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Nitas_man

[zaback21 29]

22 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

I’m not a boomer either LOL

 

I’m quite happy with heavily weighting the 250% poverty line and health insurance for sponsors dependents

 

Stats say there are plenty of people who sponsored immigrants who had no business doing so.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 250% is not for sponsor. It is still 125%. I see lots of comments here but unfortunately no one is reading the proposed changes. In the mean time all those talks about whether there should be F3/F4 visa or not, argument over whether it is racist or not and so on. 

 

The change is, intending applicants not the sponsor will need to show 250% of Federal Poverty Guidelines 2019 in the new I-944 which comes up to $31,225. New rule says I-864 is not enough as it was previously and based on their discretion they can still deny visa. Well the denial rate has gone multiple times since 2017, so one can only assume how it will be with the new proposed changes. 

 

Now no one is arguing about AOS, as all immigrant should and proper sponsorship must be required before one can be admitted. 

 

But how are intending immigrants supposed to prove $31,225 when per capita income in over 100 countries is below 5% of US. Hence, the talk about discriminatory policy changes targeting majority people from poor countries. 

How will a under 18 kid or parents over 61 show they have $31,225 even though their sponsor has vouched for them in I-864?