Final public charge rule

[azblk 338]

10 minutes ago, Hemutian said:

Are you sure about that?

"Obamacare/ACA" is not the same thing as "Medicaid/subsidies". You can't lump them into the same category. 

I'm a USC who has health insurance through the ACA in one of the marketplaces. I pay a $500 a month premium for individual health insurance. The only benefit I get from Obamacare/ACA is that insurance can't turn me away because of my preexisting condition. I'm not getting any "subsidies" from the government to help pay for my health insurance. That $500 a month comes out of my own pocket. Surely this would not make me a public charge!?

The specifically mention Obamacare as a public charge because of the subsidies. If you don't get any subsidies you should be fine.

[Ready to do it 101]

I'm actually pretty pleased with most of this. It's been needed for a long time.  The US is in a terrible place financially and I can't beleive all the non-sense on the southern border and the dems turning their back saying, "No crisis here, run along."  I imagine Republicans will sweep the Presidency, House, and Senate in 2020 given what a joke all these leftist lawmakers have become.  I've told my wife, "I'm not really a Trump fan, but if Trump doesn't win in 2020, we're moving to Colombia. "  No way I live in an America run by Socialists.  So sick of all the free (removed).  

Edited August 16, 2019 by Unlockable
language

[Ready to do it 101]

2 minutes ago, WaterLeaf said:

What about the ones who also have tax credit on it? (Not paying the full insurance price?)

That, I believe, would be a problem.

[azblk 338]

48 minutes ago, Hemutian said:

My understanding is these new guidelines only apply to AOS filers, not visa filers. By the time K1 filers file for AOS, they're already both in the US and married into one household, so there would be no "immigrant is still oversees"/"separate household"-type situation as you suggest.

The state department implemented basically the same rules back in January 2018. And we have seen denials due to likely hood of becoming a public charge go up more than 12X in the last fiscal year

[Ready to do it 101]

Something I didn't see answered (perhaps I missed it) is regarding whether or not the question of being a public charge applies to people simply renewing a 10 year LPR card.  So the Public Charge question seems to be clear for those trying to become a LPR and those trying to become a USC.  What about simply renewing an expired green card using Form I-90?  Will Public Charge questions or 250%  poverty level, etc apply for renewal of a green card after someone has been a LPR for 12 years?

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

3 minutes ago, Ready to do it said:

Something I didn't see answered (perhaps I missed it) is regarding whether or not the question of being a public charge applies to people simply renewing a 10 year LPR card.  So the Public Charge question seems to be clear for those trying to become a LPR and those trying to become a USC.  What about simply renewing an expired green card using Form I-90?  Will Public Charge questions or 250%  poverty level, etc apply for renewal of a green card after someone has been a LPR for 12 years?

No.  In addition, it does not apply to those applying for citizenship or Removal of Conditions.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by missileman

[Ready to do it 101]

While I'm not really a fan of "any" public benefits for ANYONE, other than disabled folks, I do forsee quite a few lawsuits on the horizon given these new requirement.  I mean, just 2-3 years ago USC and LPR's were REQUIRED to have health insurance under Obama and there were fines if one did not have health insurance.  Granted, subsidies were given for folks under certain income thresh holds.  But the bottom line was it was unlawful to NOT have insurance.  Fast forward to today, under the Trump plan, one cannot receive subsidies and if they do they will be considered a public charge... and they have 60 days to fix it.  I see lawsuits.  I like the premise of Trump's plan, but there needs to be a weening period of a year or two, in my opinion.  I get it, folks can't just come up with $1,000-$1,500/month for a family of 3-4 with 60 days notice.

[Ready to do it 101]

6 minutes ago, missileman said:

No.  In addition, it does not apply to those applying for citizenship or Removal of Conditions.

 

It applies for applying for Citizenship.  It was very clear about that.  That's why I wrote my whole post that I wrote because I've seen pamphlets posted here saying it doesne't apply.  The doc on USCIS clearly states that it does apply to LPR's applying for US Citizenship (Naturalization)

[Ready to do it 101]

8 minutes ago, missileman said:

No.  In addition, it does not apply to those applying for citizenship or Removal of Conditions.

 

That's the pamphlet I was referring to that is absolutely incorrect.  That Immigrant Families Pamphlet. It is wrong. It contradicts the doc posted on the USCIS website.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

 

15 minutes ago, Ready to do it said:

It applies for applying for Citizenship.  It was very clear about that.  That's why I wrote my whole post that I wrote because I've seen pamphlets posted here saying it doesne't apply.  The doc on USCIS clearly states that it does apply to LPR's applying for US Citizenship (Naturalization)

No, it does not!!!

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by missileman

[Ready to do it 101]

2 minutes ago, missileman said:

What I don't see in these posts is the fact that the rule does not prevent the immigrant from receiving public as

No, it does not!!!

 

Stop reading that document/pamphlet titled "Protecting Immigrant Families" and go read the doc on the USCIS website. Again, that document title "Protecting Immigrant Families" is incorrect and should be taken down as it is bad information and will destroy families if folks pay attention to that effective Oct 15, 2019.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

3 minutes ago, Ready to do it said:

That's the pamphlet I was referring to that is absolutely incorrect.  That Immigrant Families Pamphlet. It is wrong. It contradicts the doc posted on the USCIS website.

Can you provide a link that indicates the public charge rule applies to applying for citizenship?

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

https://www.ilrc.org/public-charge

 

"Here are a few important points regarding the public charge rule:

• The new rule interprets a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) pertaining to inadmissibility. The inadmissibility ground at issue says a person is inadmissible if they are likely to become a public charge. INA § 212(a)(4). This law only applies to individuals seeking admission into the United States or applying for adjustment of status. This provision of the law does not apply to all immigrants.
• Public charge and this rule do not apply in the naturalization process, through which lawful permanent residents apply to become U.S. citizens.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-aims-to-make-citizenship-more-difficult-for-immigrants-who-rely-on-public-assistance/2019/08/12/fe3f8162-b565-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html?noredirect=on

 

"A USCIS official said the change will have little to no effect on those who already have permanent resident status who are seeking to become naturalized U.S. citizens. “Naturalization applicants are not subject to a new admissibility determination and therefore are not generally subject to public charge determinations,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly. "

Edited August 16, 2019 by missileman

[Ready to do it 101]

4 minutes ago, missileman said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-aims-to-make-citizenship-more-difficult-for-immigrants-who-rely-on-public-assistance/2019/08/12/fe3f8162-b565-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html?noredirect=on

 

"A USCIS official said the change will have little to no effect on those who already have permanent resident status who are seeking to become naturalized U.S. citizens. “Naturalization applicants are not subject to a new admissibility determination and therefore are not generally subject to public charge determinations,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly. "

You're quoting "articles," which are wrong.  Even worse, this article was written on August 12th, before the "Final" draft even came out.  I'm teling you... go to the source.  Read the USCIS website.