Final public charge rule

[yuna628 9,689]

1 minute ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Boundless interprets the 250% over the FPG as a requirement, when it is not. 

Denials will increase? Very likely. And that is exactly why I anticipate people deciding not to file in the first place. 

And that's probably the point. It might not be an opinion shared by some though.

Does nothing for illegal immigration. If anything would cause it to increase.

[geowrian 22,337]

7 hours 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.

I would be very skeptical of any statement claiming the sky is falling for a rule that has not gone into effect yet and is unclear on its actual impact once it does. Seems a bit panic-y, doesn't it?

 

People are reading more into what this will do based on fears of the worst case scenario and reading of the rules. Calm down, take a breath, and see how it goes before running around with one's head cut off.

 

Quote

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

They didn't have to provide documentation of it, but this was all info considered per the FAM already, and info provided on the DS-160. The documentation increased, but it's not like COs weren't already taking in as part of the decision before.

 

Quote

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.

Yup, new forms & documentation. Yay~

 

Quote

(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.

This was always the case as part of the FAM policies and totality of circumstances before.

IR-5* (IR-1 is spouse of a USC).

 

Quote

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

As has always been the case.

 

Quote

(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?

I'm not going to get into the "classism" piece. That's a loaded item and I'm trying to keep focused on the actual changes. Nothing against you or people who do, but I'm just noting that I'm ignoring it as it's not a conversation I wish to partake in.

 

The sponsor is not required to show 250%. Yes, that's a positive factor, but 125% was already often deemed insufficient.

 

Quote

(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? 

Yes, it was. See your link above. More precisely, it was part of the totality of circumstances. Just because it didn't explicitly say that not having a good education was a negative factor, it's basic reason that not having one is negative and having one is positive.

 

To what degree the education will impact the results is yet to be seen. Maybe it will play a stronger role. Maybe it won't.

 

Quote

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. 

This has always been the case.

(Ignoring the "non-western" remark here...)

 

Quote

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.  

Wow...just wow.

Wanna take a bet? Please???

Edited August 14, 2019 by geowrian

[azblk 338]

4 hours ago, Unlockable said:

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.

 

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.

 

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. 

1. So you work with 3 African immigrant and you think they are an accurate representation of the greater African diaspora? You also seem to forget that if you had these new rules 20 years ago or whenever those workmates of yours came they would have never qualified to come in the first place.

2. So because the system has been discriminatory histrionically we should be fine with changes that make it even MORE discriminatory?

3. Nonsense - immigrants generally consume very little welfare. More is lost to Fraud/waste than is consumed by immigrants yet you want to hoodwink us that this about protecting the safety net for Americans. 

 

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

14 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

And that's probably the point. It might not be an opinion shared by some though.

Does nothing for illegal immigration. If anything would cause it to increase.

I think the rule could covertly tackle various issues -increasing applications and backlog being some of them-. 

Unfortunately, most of the times, desk decisions predict certain outcome while ignoring the actual conditions in the field. So the results may not be the expected ones.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Allaboutwaiting

[Diriangén 12]

Helpful information (also attached):

https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Lets-Talk-About-Public-Charge-Updated-August-2019.pdf

https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Getting-the-Help-You-Need-Updated-August-2019.pdf

Lets-Talk-About-Public-Charge-Updated-August-2019.pdf Getting-the-Help-You-Need-Updated-August-2019.pdf

[xavier2014 21]

"This final rule supersedes the 1999 Interim Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds and goes into effect at 12:00 a.m. Eastern on Oct. 15, 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. USCIS will apply the public charge inadmissibility final rule only to applications and petitions postmarked (or, if applicable, submitted electronically) on or after the effective date. Applications and petitions already pending with USCIS on the effective date of the rule (postmarked and accepted by USCIS) will be adjudicated based on the 1999 Interim Guidance. " 

 

This Form I-944  is completely new criteria and insane financial requirements ( if you want to migrate Canada as couple you need to show only 15k CAD max), it will change the whole immigration system in the USA, unfortunately those who will apply after 15 Oct. have to face this reality.

 

 

[azblk 338]

6 minutes ago, geowrian said:

They didn't have to provide documentation of it, but this was all info considered per the FAM already, and info provided on the DS-160. The documentation increased, but it's not like COs weren't already taking in as part of the decision before.

 

Yet somehow the number of denials just went from 1K to 12K in the 2 years since they started using this at embassies and consulate?

[Nitas_man 3,100]

25 minutes ago, lonesurvivor said:

That is really scary...I do not think half of the couples abuse the system. This all seems too drastic 

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

 

63% actually.  So yes, I would expect significant increase in denials.

[geowrian 22,337]

6 minutes ago, azblk said:

Yet somehow the number of denials just went from 1K to 12K in the 2 years since they started using this at embassies and consulate?

I never said scrutiny of the public charge hasn't increased. It certainly has.

But this thread is about the new upcoming rule.

[azblk 338]

3 hours ago, Nitas_man said:

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.  

 

So under what powers are illegals arrested and deported, imprisoned if they commit a crime and the like if they are not under the jurisdiction of the united states? But don't let the facts come in the way of a good narrative.

[azblk 338]

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I never said scrutiny of the public charge hasn't increased. It certainly has.

But this thread is about the new upcoming rule.

The new rule has been quietly field tested at consulates and embassies all over the world in the last 2 years and those numbers are the result. What makes you think it will be different when the USCIS starts using the same rules to decide AOS?

[Soul Mates 44]

12 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

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

 

63% actually.  So yes, I would expect significant increase in denials.

CIS is an anti-immigrant hate group, don't trust their "studies".

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/center-immigration-studies

[Nitas_man 3,100]

14 minutes ago, Soul Mates said:

CIS is an anti-immigrant hate group, don't trust their "studies".

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/center-immigration-studies

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/chilling-effects-expected-public-charge-rule-impact-legal-immigrant-families

 

I’m sorry but “labelling” what you don’t like doesn’t change data.  It’s like calling Mexico “racist” for their $2250 a month or $100,000 bank account rule to qualify for PR.

 

All the studies say the same thing.  Pick one.  Here’s another.  

 

[yuna628 9,689]

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Nitas_man said:

 

 

All the studies say the same thing.  Pick one.  Here’s another.  

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-exaggerates-immigrant-welfare-use

https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-overstates-immigrant-non-citizen-native-welfare-use

They don't actually as pointed out repeatedly to CIS over the years multiple times. But doesn't much matter at this point.

[Unlockable 7,315]

49 minutes ago, azblk said:

1. So you work with 3 African immigrant and you think they are an accurate representation of the greater African diaspora? You also seem to forget that if you had these new rules 20 years ago or whenever those workmates of yours came they would have never qualified to come in the first place.

2. So because the system has been discriminatory histrionically we should be fine with changes that make it even MORE discriminatory?

3. Nonsense - immigrants generally consume very little welfare. More is lost to Fraud/waste than is consumed by immigrants yet you want to hoodwink us that this about protecting the safety net for Americans. 

 

1. Nope. You asked the question about have I seen Africans from poor countries immigrating and I gave you personal experience.

2. It is not about discriminating. There is literally no logical way to even immigrate a fraction of the billions of people willing to cone here. It just can't happen. That is why there is immigration control which every county has.

3. It doesn't matter if immgrants consume a little or a lot. The point is, if there is a need to enforce a rule then they can do that. Whether It is 1 immigrant or 1 million using welfare, it is still a law and the government can enforce it.