Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with 'public charge' rule (merged)

[Hzz99 3]

This rulemaking is also intended to align the Department's standards with those of the Department of Homeland Security, to avoid situations where a consular officer will evaluate an alien's circumstances and conclude that the alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge, only for the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate the same alien when he seeks admission to the United States on the visa issued by the Department of State and finds the alien inadmissible on public charge grounds under the same facts. 

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/02/12/2020-02866/notice-of-intent-to-request-emergency-processing-of-information-collection-public-charge

So DOS is seeking to approve its form quickly to avoid situations like the one I mentioned above, does this mean people with issued who will apply for admission after Feb 24th will be subjected to Public charge determination at the airport? how would CBP officers conduct such tests?

Edited February 14, 2020 by Hzz99

[geowrian 22,337]

I would not expect this to impact visas issued, or admission via said visas, before that date.

[MexicoExpat 18]

15 hours ago, missileman said:

I have seen nothing to indicate that joint sponsors are being eliminated...........but it would certainly have a major effect on fiance and spousal visas.....

I'm in basically the exact same situation as the person asking this question. Visa interview March 30th. 

 

Are you saying that nothing will change as far as joint sponsors? Or that these changes could have a major effect on the way sponsors are considered for spousal visas?

[ultrasoul 51]

  

  

On 2/12/2020 at 4:33 PM, cd37 said:

Newsflash...DOS seeks emergency implemention of public charge rule on the same date as USCIS (24 FEB 2020).

 

https://www.murthy.com/2020/02/12/newsflash-dos-seeks-to-implement-new-public-charge-rule-24-feb-2020/

 

@Boiler @geowrian @missileman

 

1 hour ago, Hzz99 said:

This rulemaking is also intended to align the Department's standards with those of the Department of Homeland Security, to avoid situations where a consular officer will evaluate an alien's circumstances and conclude that the alien is not likely at any time to become a public charge, only for the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate the same alien when he seeks admission to the United States on the visa issued by the Department of State and finds the alien inadmissible on public charge grounds under the same facts. 

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/02/12/2020-02866/notice-of-intent-to-request-emergency-processing-of-information-collection-public-charge

So DOS is seeking to approve its form quickly to avoid situations like the one I mentioned above, does this mean people with issued who will apply for admission after Feb 24th will be subjected to Public charge determination at the airport? how would CBP officers conduct such tests?

 

I wonder if the result of this is that DOS NVC will be allowed to ask for all NVC consular processing applicants to now include the new 15 page I-944 Declaration of Self-Sufficiency form similar to how existing NVC cases require I-864

https://www.uscis.gov/i-944

Edited February 14, 2020 by ultrasoul

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

1 minute ago, ultrasoul said:

Anyone knows if the NVC starting Feb 24 will require all new NVC cases to start including the new 15 page I-944 Declaration of Self-Sufficiency form similar to how NVC cases require I-864? https://www.uscis.gov/i-944

The I-944 is a USCIS form required for Adjustment of Status........the DOS form will likely be the DS-5540...imo

[LizaJane 13]

7 hours ago, MexicoExpat said:

I'm in basically the exact same situation as the person asking this question. Visa interview March 30th. 

 

Are you saying that nothing will change as far as joint sponsors? Or that these changes could have a major effect on the way sponsors are considered for spousal visas?

Same situation here and getting quite worried. 

[sl1pstream 551]

Looking through this thread it's baffling how, considering the reason why people are on these forums, anti-immigrant people are.

 

This rule is going to hurt a lot of people who are looking to immigrate out of necessity, compared to a lot of people on here who immigrate because of their own choices.

 

It's also weird how some people just believe the Fox News narrative, despite having gone through the process themselves.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

5 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

Looking through this thread it's baffling how, considering the reason why people are on these forums, anti-immigrant people are.

 

This rule is going to hurt a lot of people who are looking to immigrate out of necessity, compared to a lot of people on here who immigrate because of their own choices.

 

It's also weird how some people just believe the Fox News narrative, despite having gone through the process themselves.

Yep, it's shocking how many right wingers are in this forum. Pretty depressing. 

[Scandi 4,166]

6 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

Looking through this thread it's baffling how, considering the reason why people are on these forums, anti-immigrant people are.

 

This rule is going to hurt a lot of people who are looking to immigrate out of necessity, compared to a lot of people on here who immigrate because of their own choices.

 

It's also weird how some people just believe the Fox News narrative, despite having gone through the process themselves.

I have seen what liberal immigration laws can do to a country, my home country has taken a HUGE hit in this regard. For that reason I'm all for restricted immigration and stricter immigration laws. I'm in no way liberal with regards to immigration and never will be after everything I have seen and experienced, even as an immigrant myself. So, it has nothing to do with Fox news, whatever that is. 

[geowrian 22,337]

I think it’s generally pretty hard to ascertain somebody’s political positions or leanings based solely on this thread. Unless somebody makes it abundantly clear, this is just one stance on one issue.

 

Hard to define what “anti-immigrant” means here. There are people that support legal immigration but not illegal immigration or pathways for those who broke immigration law. There are people who have no issue with IR-based immigration but don’t support chain immigration. There are people between those 2. There are people who support even broader immigrant opportunities.

 

People who are immigrating out of necessity would mostly not be subject to the public charge rule anyway.

[sl1pstream 551]

9 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I think it’s generally pretty hard to ascertain somebody’s political positions or leanings based solely on this thread. Unless somebody makes it abundantly clear, this is just one stance on one issue.

 

Hard to define what “anti-immigrant” means here. There are people that support legal immigration but not illegal immigration or pathways for those who broke immigration law. There are people who have no issue with IR-based immigration but don’t support chain immigration. There are people between those 2. There are people who support even broader immigrant opportunities.

 

People who are immigrating out of necessity would mostly not be subject to the public charge rule anyway.

This solely affects legal immigration.

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

6 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

Looking through this thread it's baffling how, considering the reason why people are on these forums, anti-immigrant people are.

Don't confuse "anti-immigration" with "anti-ILLEGAL immigration"....there is a huge difference.

[sl1pstream 551]

Just now, missileman said:

Don't confuse "anti-immigration" with "anti-ILLEGAL immigration"....there is a huge difference.

I'm not. The public charge rule solely affects legal immigrants.

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

6 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

I'm not. The public charge rule solely affects legal immigrants.

I don't see how believing that new immigrants should be able to live here without becoming a public burden to US taxpayers is somehow "anti-immigrant"..

 

EDIT:  I haven't seen any anti-immigration posters here.  After all, we all are going through/have gone through  the process of immigration.

Edited February 15, 2020 by missileman

[sl1pstream 551]

5 minutes ago, missileman said:

I don't see how believing that new immigrants should be able to live here without becoming a public burden to US taxpayers is somehow "anti-immigrant"..

 

EDIT:  I haven't seen any anti-immigration posters here.  After all, we all are going through/have gone through  the process of immigration.

Are legal immigrants paying taxes?