Spare the Angst Over the 'Public Charge' Rule

[TBoneTX 45,570]

Clearly stated, it appears.  Observations?

Quote

Spare the Angst Over the 'Public Charge' Rule

Rachel Bovard - August 17th, 2019

 

The Trump Administration is continuing to take steps to enforce existing immigration laws.  And the response from the Left and the mainstream media (at this point, one and the same) has been what you’d expect.

 

Earlier in the week, [...]

 

Continues here: https://amgreatness.com/2019/08/17/spare-the-angst-over-the-public-charge-rule/
 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by TBoneTX

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Clearly stated, it appears.  Observations?

 

Any of us that have been thru the process knows

[TBoneTX 45,570]

Yeah, but it's causing everyone to freak.

[yuna628 9,686]

TB: If you browse through the thread where there are a lot of freakouts, angst, confusion, and panic - you'd see my thoughts. It's relatively unchanged since I originally brought up some concerns with the wording of the policy when it was in it's first draft stages. They do admit that the majority of those that cared enough to put (and if you read them valid points and questions) to the USCIS/DHS at the time were negative in opinion - not to the principles of self sufficiency but to how it was being implemented and the use of troubling overreach and language.

 

It is always firmly my opinion that immigration rules belong in the hands of congress, there it is not catered to by the whims of an administration - which can easily change the rules without a lot of thought into the process when the next administration arrives on the scene. The concerning and intentionally confusing language of months ago is still there, and there is still inherent overreach of 'big brother' becoming a little too involved in the lives and choices of its citizenry.  

 

It may indeed reduce visas to many persons who were not self sufficient for their spouse's care, but neither were actually relying on benefits or doing anything amiss or illegal.

 

It may indeed reduce visas to those intending to already do illegal things. But research definitely shows it will do a lot of damage in other ways, while at the same time not addressing critical issues, and perhaps increasing it - illegal immigration and backlog. It does not clarify the process. It does not make it easier or fair. It makes it more burdensome and increases the involvement of government in our lives. From a libertarian perspective, these are not things I take lightly.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

TB: If you browse through the thread where there are a lot of freakouts, angst, confusion, and panic - you'd see my thoughts. It's relatively unchanged since I originally brought up some concerns with the wording of the policy when it was in it's first draft stages. They do admit that the majority of those that cared enough to put (and if you read them valid points and questions) to the USCIS/DHS at the time were negative in opinion - not to the principles of self sufficiency but to how it was being implemented and the use of troubling overreach and language.

 

It is always firmly my opinion that immigration rules belong in the hands of congress, there it is not catered to by the whims of an administration - which can easily change the rules without a lot of thought into the process when the next administration arrives on the scene. The concerning and intentionally confusing language of months ago is still there, and there is still inherent overreach of 'big brother' becoming a little too involved in the lives and choices of its citizenry.  

 

It may indeed reduce visas to many persons who were not self sufficient for their spouse's care, but neither were actually relying on benefits or doing anything amiss or illegal.

 

It may indeed reduce visas to those intending to already do illegal things. But research definitely shows it will do a lot of damage in other ways, while at the same time not addressing critical issues, and perhaps increasing it - illegal immigration and backlog. It does not clarify the process. It does not make it easier or fair. It makes it more burdensome and increases the involvement of government in our lives. From a libertarian perspective, these are not things I take lightly.

This rule has been in place for many many years. Not so whim of Trump's

 

unlike the Dreamer EO that Obama did after congress flatly did not pass that into law. 

[yuna628 9,686]

54 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

This rule has been in place for many many years. Not so whim of Trump's

 

unlike the Dreamer EO that Obama did after congress flatly did not pass that into law. 

EOs and other administration maneuvering is no way to govern.

The rule has been in place yes. But not how it is defined, nor the new ways of paperwork burdens, restrictions, and government involvement in our lives.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

20 hours ago, yuna628 said:

EOs and other administration maneuvering is no way to govern.

The rule has been in place yes. But not how it is defined, nor the new ways of paperwork burdens, restrictions, and government involvement in our lives.

The only thing that I am not in agreement with in regards to this new rule is the credit score for the beneficiary. The rest of it is ok by me but I do wish it could have gone through Congress but we both know that it would never ever get passed. 

 

But it does make me laugh when I hear politicians like Gavin Newsom say that this new rule is racist because it just shows that the race angle is all they got. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Dashinka 24,628]

On 8/20/2019 at 12:03 AM, yuna628 said:

EOs and other administration maneuvering is no way to govern.

The rule has been in place yes. But not how it is defined, nor the new ways of paperwork burdens, restrictions, and government involvement in our lives.

When is the last time Congress passed any meaningful immigration measures.  Both side like the political football for their various reasons.  Additionally, any law passed by Congress is always going to face enforcement interpretations based on the current Executive Branch.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

When is the last time Congress passed any meaningful immigration measures.  Both side like the political football for their various reasons.  Additionally, any law passed by Congress is always going to face enforcement interpretations based on the current Executive Branch.

You mean like the current admin trying to enforce decades-old laws, but getting hampered at every turn?  I agree.

[yuna628 9,686]

26 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

When is the last time Congress passed any meaningful immigration measures.  Both side like the political football for their various reasons.  Additionally, any law passed by Congress is always going to face enforcement interpretations based on the current Executive Branch.

A lot of things shouldn't be political footballs.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

A lot of things shouldn't be political footballs.

Like legal immigration, time frame for ROC is now up to 19-24 months at Nebraska Service Center, focus on legal paying customers over line jumpers ...

[laylalex 7,293]

1 hour ago, Randyandyuni said:

Like legal immigration, time frame for ROC is now up to 19-24 months at Nebraska Service Center, focus on legal paying customers over line jumpers ...

That is so crazy! When we went through ROC in 2013, it took about 3 months at the California Service Center, if I recall correctly. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

10 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That is so crazy! When we went through ROC in 2013, it took about 3 months at the California Service Center, if I recall correctly. 

It was 9 months in 2015

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

12 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

It was 9 months in 2015

In 2011 from the time I filed K1 to she arrived in ATL was on 4.5 months.

 Recent citizenship took almost 1.5 years.

 

Trump has ruined America 

[laylalex 7,293]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

In 2011 from the time I filed K1 to she arrived in ATL was on 4.5 months.

 Recent citizenship took almost 1.5 years.

 

Trump has ruined America 

Lol, maybe!  

 

My ex's citizenship back in 2017 (I think) took way less than a year, maybe seven months? I dunno, I was glad to have the I-864 be over and done with. Congrats to you and your wife though.  

18 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

It was 9 months in 2015

That's too long too. I'm not looking forward to going through AOS again, I hear it takes forever now.