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

[SalishSea 17,836]

4 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

Are legal immigrants paying taxes?

I would assume the ones with jobs do, just like American citizens.  One of the issues comes when people bring elderly parents here with no real plan or concept for how to provide for them since they won't have paid into Medicare or social security.  

 

Similarly, I wouldn't expect to be able to retire to a different country without a solid financial plan, since I have not paid into any benefit/insurance system elsewhere.

 

Not that all "contributions to society" are financial, but the money has to come from somewhere.  The reality for everyone is that with aging comes increased medical needs and costs.  I feel very fortunate that both of my parents, in their 70s, had solid civil service careers and now have defined-benefit pensions, social security, and medicare.  I'm providing 24/7 hospice care to my father, in my home.  I work and still have a kid in college.  Without Dad's SS income and Medicare coverage, I wouldn't be able to pay caregivers so I can work to support my kid and immigrant husband.  

 

 

[SalishSea 17,836]

4 hours 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.

Thank you for making this point, Geo.  Immigration is a complex issue that transcends politics.  

[SalishSea 17,836]

11 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

This rule is going to hurt a lot of people who are looking to immigrate out of necessity,

Are you referring to asylum seekers?  Because I don't believe they are subject to the public charge rule.

[geowrian 22,337]

5 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Are you referring to asylum seekers?  Because I don't believe they are subject to the public charge rule.

Correct, which was part of what was meant in my prior post.  

4 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

This solely affects legal immigration.

Correct. Not sure how that conflicts with anything stated.

[LDRwins 0]

My fiance receives food stamps for him and his kids currently, and we are wondering if will they need to end this altogether once i am over in the US? Or will he be able to carry on receiving them as long as he doesn't get any increase for me being part of the family?

 

For the public charge concerns, i obviously don't want to have any government assistance. So we are trying to figure out if me being in the household would automatically have me viewed as receiving benefits, or if there is a way that i can be not included in the dependents that he is claiming food stamps for?

 

And help would be appreciated!

[JFH 12,190]

All I can say is what happened to us... When I arrived my husband was unemployed. He went to claim food stamps and was told that he could not have them because I was in the same household and I would be eating the food too. If he bought a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk, for example, it’s safe to assume that I would be eating from the same loaf and using milk from the same bottle. 
 

Is this an official rule? Who knows. It may have been this particular case worker’s own interpretation of it. 

[LDRwins 0]

Hmm that's an interesting way to look at it, that does make sense 😕 sounds like to be on the safe side he may need to come off of food stamps? 

[geowrian 22,337]

Public charge "totality of circumstances" criteria, directly from the FAM: https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2

 

Note the item in bold:

Quote

(c)  (U) Receipt of Means-Tested Benefits by the Sponsor:

(i)     (U) The sponsor's past or current receipt of means-tested benefits is a factor in support of a finding of inadmissibility for the applicant under INA 212(a)(4), insofar as it affects the applicant’s resources and financial status, including  the sponsor’s ability to support the applicant.   

(ii)    (U) If the sponsor or any member of his or her household has received public means-tested benefits within the past three years, you must review fully the sponsor's current ability to provide the requisite level of support, taking into consideration the kind of assistance provided and the dates received.

(iii)    (U) You must review carefully Form I-864 or Form I-134 and all attachments submitted with Form I-134, as well as evidence of the sponsor's current financial circumstances, in such cases.

(iv)   (U) See 9 FAM 302.8-2(C) for more information on the affidavit of support. 

 

This does not disqualify somebody as a sponsor. But it is a negative factor.

Edited February 17, 2020 by geowrian

[LDRwins 0]

Okay, that does make sense, i do understand that. If we were willing to risk it as a negative.. with food stamps is there a way of him and the kids still receiving them with myself being left out? And if so, how would we go about that

Edited February 17, 2020 by LDRwins

[LizaJane 13]

On 2/15/2020 at 9:54 AM, Scandi said:

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. 

Yet you say this as one that was allowed to immigrate here while not facing these new uber conservative restrictions that this administration is now imposing. The statue of liberty itself says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This administration is saying the exact opposite. Perhaps you would be singing a different tune had you not been allowed to immigrate here because of such extremely conservative immigration rules.

[geowrian 22,337]

6 minutes ago, LizaJane said:

new uber conservative restrictions

Examples?

 

If this is in response to the public charge rule changes - while more restrictive than before - this is far from "uber conservative".

I see you or your SO hail from the UK. Ever look at their financial sponsorship requirements for immigrating?

Edited February 18, 2020 by geowrian

[Boiler 45,525]

Also look at the requirements for Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc.

[LizaJane 13]

16 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Examples?

 

If this is in response to the public charge rule changes - while more restrictive than before - this is far from "uber conservative".

I see you or your SO hail from the UK. Ever look at their financial sponsorship requirements for immigrating?

Yes, and it's not much more than the financial requirements for here. As far as uber conservative as a phrase, in comparison to how it used to be, I'd say yes, it is very restrictive and conservative and goes against the very principles this country was founded on. 

[Boiler 45,525]

Depends on how far back you go, Chinese Exclusion Act?

[yuna628 9,676]

4 minutes ago, LizaJane said:

Yes, and it's not much more than the financial requirements for here. As far as uber conservative as a phrase, in comparison to how it used to be, I'd say yes, it is very restrictive and conservative and goes against the very principles this country was founded on. 

Half of the population of the UK could not fulfill the requirements to bring their spouses to live with them, and some entire regions of the UK have absolutely no chance. There is no chance of co-sponsorship. And there is a whole host of additional restrictions, including an exceedingly lengthy process (and some say bordering on stupidity) to finally reach citizenship. Families have endured separation for years. By contrast the financial rules to bring a spouse or fiance to the US are exceedingly easier, the cost of living and inflation is vastly different, and even those who are quite poor or have unique circumstances could use a co-sponsor to assist. The process for citizenship is also easier. I am personally thankful that while still difficult, the US gives opportunities to immigrate here without enduring the nonsense in the UK system.

 

As I have said before, I do not agree with many of the changes in the rules. They are intrusive and some are quite unhelpful by default in a system that needs a severe overhaul. But they are still not as restrictive as other countries. It is our responsibility as sponsors to ensure our s/o's, children, and parents that we bring are cared for and that we are self sufficient. Conservative means a lot of different things. The founding principles had a mix of conservative and liberal ideals, and ideas about immigration changed consistently over time - from a more libertarian position to one that was more restrictionist. Restrictionism isn't a conservative idea in terms of purity, it comes from Nationalism. If you want to look at the more horrible ideas embedded in founding principles, slavery was also one of them, and the thought that a woman couldn't vote - and nowhere did that coexist with conservatism. But we are a nation of humans, and humans often make stupid errors and are doomed to repeat them.

 

If you feel that the UK rules are not too crazy for you, then it's doubtful you'll have any trouble whatsoever and shouldn't be concerned with the rules on your journey.