Final public charge rule

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/dhs-finalizes-public-charge-rule

 

"Impact on Lawful Permanent Residents

The final DHS rule does not change the public charge ground of deportability, so lawful permanent residents (LPRs) will generally not be affected now by their receipt of public benefits identified in the newly-expanded list of programs. Nor would they be subject to any new scrutiny in their application for naturalization. LPRs can be subject to the new rules, however, in circumstances where they are considered applicants for admission, which includes returning to the United States from a trip abroad in excess of 180 days. In addition, the Department of Justice intends to publish a regulation that would make it easier for the agency to deport non-citizens who have become a public charge within five years of entry based on conditions existing at the time they were last admitted. That proposed regulation has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget and is awaiting clearance and publication in proposed form.

Edited August 16, 2019 by missileman

[Ready to do it 101]

What has happened is Trump has expanded what is considered "non-cash" public benefits. It now includes almost all forms of Medicaid, with few exceptions... pregnant women, certain kids under 21, military spouses, etc... I'm not listing all the examples.  One can simply go to USCIS to read the exceptions.  All other forms of medicaid... which is what accepting subsidies is will now be considered a "non-cash" pubic benefit which if accepted for 12 out of 36 months after OCt 15, 2019 "WILL BE" considered a public charge.  The USCIS document is very clear.

[Ready to do it 101]

8 minutes ago, missileman said:

https://cliniclegal.org/resources/dhs-finalizes-public-charge-rule

 

"Impact on Lawful Permanent Residents

The final DHS rule does not change the public charge ground of deportability, so lawful permanent residents (LPRs) will generally not be affected now by their receipt of public benefits identified in the newly-expanded list of programs. Nor would they be subject to any new scrutiny in their application for naturalization. LPRs can be subject to the new rules, however, in circumstances where they are considered applicants for admission, which includes returning to the United States from a trip abroad in excess of 180 days. In addition, the Department of Justice intends to publish a regulation that would make it easier for the agency to deport non-citizens who have become a public charge within five years of entry based on conditions existing at the time they were last admitted. That proposed regulation has been sent to the Office of Management and Budget and is awaiting clearance and publication in proposed form.

Again, you are posting articles.  Why not read it direct from the source.  I agree with what it says about LPR's will generally not be afffected now by their receipt of public benefits... (i.e. they won't be deported)... especially if after they've held LPR for more than 5 years imo.  The next sentence that says "Nor would they be subject to any new scrutiny in their application for naturalization" conflicts with what is stated on USCIS website.  I'm off to bed.  

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

1 hour ago, Ready to do it said:

Again, you are posting articles.  Why not read it direct from the source.  I agree with what it says about LPR's will generally not be afffected now by their receipt of public benefits... (i.e. they won't be deported)... especially if after they've held LPR for more than 5 years imo.  The next sentence that says "Nor would they be subject to any new scrutiny in their application for naturalization" conflicts with what is stated on USCIS website.  I'm off to bed.  

Here you go:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-17142.pdf

Page 140

"Comment: One commenter asks whether the public charge regulation would apply to applicants seeking naturalization. Response: The laws governing naturalization can be found in Title III of the INA. The public charge ground of inadmissibility does not apply in naturalization proceedings."

Edited August 16, 2019 by missileman

[WaterLeaf 201]

On 8/12/2019 at 10:23 PM, geowrian said:

Credit scores I have a problem with...I really wish they nixed that part of the rule before finalizing it. =\ Credit scores were not intended for this purpose, and when you use something for an unintended purpose, nothing good happens...

Credit scores shouldn't be one of the heavy impact to be honest, but it's really crazy how it turns out to be heavily used for almost anything let alone shouldn't be used for certain of things as well (abusive control imo).

 

I may have a good/excellent credit score now but history wise there is really not much, and I prefer to pay everything up front instead of having payments/debts so hopefully that can be reconsidered...

 

and my man doesn't want to get a credit card, he'll have no history whatsoever and no score. I wonder how that will take effect when it comes to ROC/Naturalization. Everything else would be set by then.

[xavier2014 21]

2 hours ago, Ready to do it said:

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).  

Colombia is not a bad place to live man...A lot of Americans now planning to retired there. Maybe quality of life in Colombia or freedom of speech is better than US for sure. Plus you can save tons of money in house rent.

Regarding financial situation, if you know how to make money( not the online clickbait one) you can make it from anywhere.

If you like to have access to American business you can do that like i do my business partner lives in California and I live in another part of the world. I am contributing to the US economy without living there.

 

[Boketto 211]

1 hour ago, Ready to do it said:

Again, you are posting articles.  Why not read it direct from the source.  I agree with what it says about LPR's will generally not be afffected now by their receipt of public benefits... (i.e. they won't be deported)... especially if after they've held LPR for more than 5 years imo.  The next sentence that says "Nor would they be subject to any new scrutiny in their application for naturalization" conflicts with what is stated on USCIS website.  I'm off to bed.  

 

You’re wrong.

 

On the USCIS website it states very clearly that it doesn’t apply to naturalization applications.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge

 

Literally the first question / answer:

 

”What is a public charge and when does it apply?”

 

Answer: “Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to that of an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence (Green Card) is inadmissible if the individual, "at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge." Public charge does not apply in naturalization proceedings. If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status is not granted.”

 

 

[geowrian 22,337]

3 hours ago, Ready to do it said:

Wow so much misinformation here.... and those pamphlets someone posted out of California... so much bad advise.  

 

The new law clearly states that receiving health insurance subsidies will be a public charge after after Oct 15, 2019.  I.e. If you are a LPR and plan to apply for citizenship, you better make sure you no longer are receiving subsidies.  That is how I read it and there's this pamphlet that someone posted that says recieving public benefits will not be considered a public charge when applying for citizenship... completely false.

^ This is the misinformation.

 

2 hours ago, Ready to do it said:

Again, you are posting articles.  Why not read it direct from the source.

Can you post the section of the source that states this? I've read the source and have not seen it.

[Boketto 211]

Everyone who is reading this is concerned about how the new rule may impact them, so I made a light summary of what the USCIS website says about public charge that might be pertinent to whoever is reading. The full page I summarized from is here: 

 

https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/final-rule-public-charge-ground-inadmissibility

 

If I missed anything important or got anything wrong, please let me know and I’ll revise. 

 

Summary

 

1. The rule applies to:

 

- Applicants for admission, which includes those returning from abroad where their duration of stay subjects them to admission approval

 

- Aliens seeking to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents from within the United States (unless they are exempt for a variety of reasons such as being an asylee or trafficking victim ) 

 

- Aliens within the United States who hold a nonimmigrant visa and seek to extend their stay in the SAME classification or change their status to a DIFFERENT nonimmigrant classification

 

So that means it does not apply to:

 

- Removal of conditions, since the immigrant is not adjusting status to become an LPR but to renew it, nor is the immigrant holding a non immigrant visa 

 

- Naturalization, since the immigrant is already of lawful status 

 

2. The rule considerations do NOT apply to:

 

- Those who are exempt such as trafficking victims, asylees, VAWA etc

 

- Benefits received by the applicant or their family members if they are enlisted or on active duty at time of filing 

 

- Medicaid benefits received: (1) for the treatment of an “emergency medical condition,” (2) as services or benefits provided in connection with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (3) as school-based services or benefits provided to individuals who are at or below the oldest age eligible for secondary education as determined under State or local law, (4) by aliens under the age of 21, and (5) by pregnant women and by women within the 60-day period beginning on the last day of the pregnancy. 

 

- Public benefits received on BEHALF of someone else as guardian or power of attorney. 

 

- Public benefits obtained by someone else in the applicants household, unless the applicant is a direct beneficiary of that benefit. 

 

So the public charge concerns apply if the applicant RECEIVED THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT DIRECTLY, or as a LISTED BEENEFICARY. 

 

3. The amount and duration taken into consideration:

 

-  An applicant is definitely considered a public charge if they receive an aggregate of 12 months worth of benefits in a 36 month period. So if you receive two types of benefits in one month, it counts as two months worth of benefits. 

 

- An applicant COULD still be considered a public charge based on the totality of he benefits they receive even if the duration doesn’t reach that threshold above. It’s all up to officer discretion. 

 

4. Types of benefits taken into consideration:

 

- Any federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance   

 

- Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 

 

- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

 

- Federal, state or local cash benefit programs for income maintenance (often called “General Assistance” in the state context, but which may exist under other names)  

 

- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or formerly called “Food Stamps”) 

 

- Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher Program 

 

- Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (including Moderate Rehabilitation)  

 

- Public Housing under section 9 the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. 

 

- Federally funded Medicaid (with certain exclusions) 

 

 

5. Public charge likelihood is determined by: 

 

- The weighing of positive vs negative factors 

 

Apart from the basics of the applicant’s:

 

Age

Health 

Family status

Assets, resources, and financial status

Education and skills

Prospective immigration status

Expected period of admission

Sufficient Form I-864

 

The following are considered strongly positive or negative:

 

Strongly positive factors:

 

- Sponsor or household income is 250% above FPG 

 

- Applicant has private health insurance for foreseeable future 

 

- Applicant is employed with income 250% above FPG

 

Strongly negative factors:

 

- Applicant doesn’t study or work, no employment history

 

- Applicant has received 12 out of 36 aggregate months of benefits 

 

- Applicant has a medical condition but doesn’t have private health insurance 

 

So if you have negative factors, the positive factors would weigh favorably to mitigate them. Similarly if you have positive factors, the negative factors would offset them. 

 

 

6. What I got from this (my own interpretation) is that:

 

- Either side having an income of 250% above FPG

 

- Having private health insurance

 

- Never having been on any benefits for an aggregate of 1 year out of 3 

 

...Are the most crucial factors to getting approved. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Boketto

[yuna628 9,687]

Okay I answer a lot of health insurance questions on this forum and I'd like to clarify something in this thread before it gets worse.

 

Some facts:

 

1) Using Obamacare/ACA WITH or WITHOUT the subsidy (which very few qualify for anyway) is NOT considered being a public charge and it is NOT a means tested benefit. Why? Because the LAW says so. Go to the ACA website and look at the immigrant portion and it says so. Look at numerous court case rulings and it says so.

 

2) It was NEVER at any point AGAINST the law to NOT purchase health insurance. You have the option to not purchase health insurance - if you do not then the law previously stated (up until this FY when the administration changed it) that you would pay a penalty in taxes. Is it a fine? No. Would you be hauled away to jail for not paying it? Nope. Would you be hauled away for not having health insurance? Nope. Do we know why? To know why you'd need to go back to the SCOTUS ruling about WHAT Obamacare is and how it is defined to begin with. Justice Roberts wrote a pretty neat opinion about this. He kept the teeth knocked out of the penalty portion and acknowledged that Obamacare really is just like a window browser for insurance plans you could pretty much buy from the insurance company if you window shopped yourselves. The subsidy was so convoluted it really barely helped, when it does help. I'm sure many are thankful when it does, but most of us are still paying through the nose no matter if you use this system or not. SCOTUS also clearly found that a government cannot compel a person to buy a product (any product), because it strips a person of their free will and right to choose for themselves - bad or good choices. This made the penalty (big lawyerly debate about how to define a penalty, fine, or surcharge) lack any if all enforceable power.

 

3) When this USCIS policy change came up last year, I was GREATLY concerned. The badly written document wanted to lump Obamacare in with all of it. It had confusing language that implied it could be considered a public charge CONTRARY to the law. Do we see the problem? A government cannot exist in two bubbles. It cannot state that a product is allowable to use by all by one agency and then deny use of it via another agency. Suddenly stating Obamacare was a public charge would absolutely be contrary to the court's ruling and would cause a slew of lawsuits that I didn't believe the administration could ever defend. I remain skeptical to some degree they will win some of the next arguments about this policy, but we shall see.

 

4) My second great concern with the original draft was not just the credit score thing - which is stupid, wrong, and invasive - and not the extra required burdens and paperwork - but that the wording of the draft strongly implied public charge and self sufficiency would be put towards things like ROC ect. It further implied that the couple would have to maintain health insurance (private health insurance) at all times, that CHIP and forms of allowable Medicaid, and even Medicare (which is off limits for five years but allowable thereafter) would be considered if used by the applicant or petitioner at any time. We can now see that the government backed off of this stupid idea. However...

 

5) The new policy as it is written, still utilizes confusing lingo (probably purposefully). It states that a greater positive weight will be considered if a person has private health insurance (it makes sneakily no mention of Ocare here).We have to consider what they actually mean by that, and it is true that in confusion people will become frightened and dump their Ocare plans, or scramble to go private. How do we define private insurance? The majority of plans offered on Ocare without subsidy are the same exact plans you can buy at the same prices on the insurer's website. They are no different. How a subsidy works - it's a tax credit: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-health-care-reform-questions-about-health/

 

In short: Obamacare still is not a means tested benefit. Never was. And this administration still says it isn't. From a personal liberty standpoint I find a lot of what this new rule change asked for none of our government's dang business. It will do nothing about backlog, well meaning immigrants, stopping illegal immigration, or making this process less of a challenge or easing confusion.

 

You have the choice whether or not to be stupid in this country. That includes being stupid and not purchasing health insurance. And I hear ya, it's expensive. I once was without it, but when you bring your spouse, or family member to this country YOU have the responsibility for their care. Maybe you don't care about yourself, but you should care about them and their health future. I, nor.. should the government for that matter, force a person to be responsible, but if you went through this process and cared enough about another HUMAN BEING to get them to a country away from everything they have ever known, then you should be struggling like the rest of us to pay the monthly premium or finding a job that offers something. Don't like the cost of those premiums and insurance? Then you probably should be making different choices at the ballot box.

Edited August 16, 2019 by yuna628

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

11 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Don't like the cost of those premiums and insurance? Then you probably should be making different choices at the ballot box.

There is no free lunch......

 

"You have the choice whether or not to be stupid in this country. That includes being stupid and not purchasing health insurance. And I hear ya, it's expensive. I once was without it, but when you bring your spouse, or family member to this country YOU have the responsibility for their care."  Agree 100%

Edited August 16, 2019 by missileman

[yuna628 9,687]

3 minutes ago, missileman said:

There is no free lunch......

I'd happily buy lunch for anyone that could understand they need to be giving greater thought to providing their loved ones a means of survival when they come to this country, but the government can't control stupid.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

I'd happily buy lunch for anyone that could understand they need to be giving greater thought to providing their loved ones a means of survival when they come to this country, but the government can't control stupid.

True.......It amazes me to see the number of  people who seem to consider the real costs of living in the US as an after-thought rather than developing a real practical plan on the front end.....

 

[Mrsjackson 300]

32 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Okay I answer a lot of health insurance questions on this forum and I'd like to clarify something in this thread before it gets worse.

 

Some facts:

 

1) Using Obamacare/ACA WITH or WITHOUT the subsidy (which very few qualify for anyway) is NOT considered being a public charge and it is NOT a means tested benefit. Why? Because the LAW says so. Go to the ACA website and look at the immigrant portion and it says so. Look at numerous court case rulings and it says so.

 

2) It was NEVER at any point AGAINST the law to NOT purchase health insurance. You have the option to not purchase health insurance - if you do not then the law previously stated (up until this FY when the administration changed it) that you would pay a penalty in taxes. Is it a fine? No. Would you be hauled away to jail for not paying it? Nope. Would you be hauled away for not having health insurance? Nope. Do we know why? To know why you'd need to go back to the SCOTUS ruling about WHAT Obamacare is and how it is defined to begin with. Justice Roberts wrote a pretty neat opinion about this. He kept the teeth knocked out of the penalty portion and acknowledged that Obamacare really is just like a window browser for insurance plans you could pretty much buy from the insurance company if you window shopped yourselves. The subsidy was so convoluted it really barely helped, when it does help. I'm sure many are thankful when it does, but most of us are still paying through the nose no matter if you use this system or not. SCOTUS also clearly found that a government cannot compel a person to buy a product (any product), because it strips a person of their free will and right to choose for themselves - bad or good choices. This made the penalty (big lawyerly debate about how to define a penalty, fine, or surcharge) lack any if all enforceable power.

 

3) When this USCIS policy change came up last year, I was GREATLY concerned. The badly written document wanted to lump Obamacare in with all of it. It had confusing language that implied it could be considered a public charge CONTRARY to the law. Do we see the problem? A government cannot exist in two bubbles. It cannot state that a product is allowable to use by all by one agency and then deny use of it via another agency. Suddenly stating Obamacare was a public charge would absolutely be contrary to the court's ruling and would cause a slew of lawsuits that I didn't believe the administration could ever defend. I remain skeptical to some degree they will win some of the next arguments about this policy, but we shall see.

 

4) My second great concern with the original draft was not just the credit score thing - which is stupid, wrong, and invasive - and not the extra required burdens and paperwork - but that the wording of the draft strongly implied public charge and self sufficiency would be put towards things like ROC ect. It further implied that the couple would have to maintain health insurance (private health insurance) at all times, that CHIP and forms of allowable Medicaid, and even Medicare (which is off limits for five years but allowable thereafter) would be considered if used by the applicant or petitioner at any time. We can now see that the government backed off of this stupid idea. However...

 

5) The new policy as it is written, still utilizes confusing lingo (probably purposefully). It states that a greater positive weight will be considered if a person has private health insurance (it makes sneakily no mention of Ocare here).We have to consider what they actually mean by that, and it is true that in confusion people will become frightened and dump their Ocare plans, or scramble to go private. How do we define private insurance? The majority of plans offered on Ocare without subsidy are the same exact plans you can buy at the same prices on the insurer's website. They are no different. How a subsidy works - it's a tax credit: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/explaining-health-care-reform-questions-about-health/

 

In short: Obamacare still is not a means tested benefit. Never was. And this administration still says it isn't. From a personal liberty standpoint I find a lot of what this new rule change asked for none of our government's dang business. It will do nothing about backlog, well meaning immigrants, stopping illegal immigration, or making this process less of a challenge or easing confusion.

 

You have the choice whether or not to be stupid in this country. That includes being stupid and not purchasing health insurance. And I hear ya, it's expensive. I once was without it, but when you bring your spouse, or family member to this country YOU have the responsibility for their care. Maybe you don't care about yourself, but you should care about them and their health future. I, nor.. should the government for that matter, force a person to be responsible, but if you went through this process and cared enough about another HUMAN BEING to get them to a country away from everything they have ever known, then you should be struggling like the rest of us to pay the monthly premium or finding a job that offers something. Don't like the cost of those premiums and insurance? Then you probably should be making different choices at the ballot box.

You are so spot on. The original draft of this rule was horrendous in its wording. It actually sounded completely illegal (many interpreted them as saying they were going to apply the law retroactively which DHS has to clarify). It’s no secret this garnered a lot of attention when it was published in the federal registry, and they definitely made some alterations to what they had originally planned. The final rule seems logical, but I believe the backlash and the threat of never ending courtroom battles played a part in that to be perfectly honest. 

[Boketto 211]

“From a personal liberty standpoint I find a lot of what this new rule change asked for none of our government's dang business. It will do nothing about backlog, well meaning immigrants, stopping illegal immigration, or making this process less of a challenge or easing confusion.” 

 

Exactly it simply creates more chaos based on assumptions. Why not just simply issue a blanket rule where everything is the same as before in regard to admission and adjustment, but if the immigrant uses benefits at any time before they become a citizen - then the immigrant must make a detailed yearly declaration on what benefit and how much they received. The total amount of benefits cannot exceed a certain amount and if you are ever found to be lying on your reports then you’re immediately deportable. Then just enter those numbers into a database and run comparative checks with government data regularly. 

 

That way nobody has to go through this panopticon style bureaucracy and add to the workload of every officer who probably are annoyed enough as it is. Why must everyone on both sides be punished for the fault of some greedy people who take advantage of the system?