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

[LizaJane 13]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

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

Yes, agreed obviously. I simply meant in comparison to most recently before this administration's changes.

[DesiJase 52]

On 2/16/2020 at 11:35 PM, geowrian said:

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:

 

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

I have no idea where I read it, Facebook I think, but somewhere I read that they were only going to count benefits against you after Feb 24th, I don't know if that's accurate though. 

[geowrian 22,337]

55 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. 

1) But it is more

2) No joint sponsorship. So if you don't personally earn enough, you're stuck. This effectively makes it much, much more restrictive than the US. Many people use joint sponsors for US immigration.

 

8 minutes ago, DesiJase said:

I have no idea where I read it, Facebook I think, but somewhere I read that they were only going to count benefits against you after Feb 24th, I don't know if that's accurate though. 

The quoted remark was in response to the other user above my post. They had their own thread but it appears to have been merged into this thread, so it may appear out of context now.

 

As for you remark, the answer is "yes and no". Well, kinda....see the NOTE below.

No, that quote is from the rules in place today. It is unrelated to this rule change. They will still look at past usage (within that timeframe) by the sponsor, their household, and the applicant as negative factors.

Yes, the expanded rules only apply to usage once the rule is put into place. So if you are fine under the current rules but not the new ones, and stop before the 24th, it is not supposed to be held against you. If you were not fine under current rules, you would still be so under the new rules.

 

NOTE: It's a bit confusing as we are mixing rules here. My quote was from the FAM. The FAM is the manual used by the DOS. It applies in determining eligibility for a visa.

The rule discussed ITT (the one SCOTUS ruled on) is a DHS rule. USCIS is under DHS and handles AOS. So this rule has no impact on visas. And my FAM quote is separate from what an IO will use to determine if somebody is likely to become a public charge for AOS purposes.

At the same time, the similar (not identical) DOS public charge rule is being pushed to be expedited for implementation on the same date. That may or may not happen.

[DesiJase 52]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

1) But it is more

2) No joint sponsorship. So if you don't personally earn enough, you're stuck. This effectively makes it much, much more restrictive than the US. Many people use joint sponsors for US immigration.

 

The quoted remark was in response to the other user above my post. They had their own thread but it appears to have been merged into this thread, so it may appear out of context now.

 

As for you remark, the answer is "yes and no". Well, kinda....see the NOTE below.

No, that quote is from the rules in place today. It is unrelated to this rule change. They will still look at past usage (within that timeframe) by the sponsor, their household, and the applicant as negative factors.

Yes, the expanded rules only apply to usage once the rule is put into place. So if you are fine under the current rules but not the new ones, and stop before the 24th, it is not supposed to be held against you. If you were not fine under current rules, you would still be so under the new rules.

 

NOTE: It's a bit confusing as we are mixing rules here. My quote was from the FAM. The FAM is the manual used by the DOS. It applies in determining eligibility for a visa.

The rule discussed ITT (the one SCOTUS ruled on) is a DHS rule. USCIS is under DHS and handles AOS. So this rule has no impact on visas. And my FAM quote is separate from what an IO will use to determine if somebody is likely to become a public charge for AOS purposes.

At the same time, the similar (not identical) DOS public charge rule is being pushed to be expedited for implementation on the same date. That may or may not happen.

Crikey...in theory it should be simple enough but in trying to understand everything it's 🤪

[LizaJane 13]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

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.

You are comparing it to immigration laws in other countries whereas I was only comparing the new policies to our own recent ones. There's a difference.  (Also I'll add that the option of a cosponsor,  the way things are going, seems likely to be on the way out. Even though technically still an option it seems clear that the new changes are geared towards eventually ruling that out, or at the very least having it be a negatively weighted factor in one's case.)

Edited February 18, 2020 by LizaJane

[Boring Life 20]

On 2/12/2020 at 3:16 PM, JuJu83 said:

Hi,

Can someone help me to understand the filing cutoff of using old vs new form please?

Is it counting toward the submission of both I-864 & Ds-260 forms only even I don't have any supporting document in this submission such as tax transcript? I am still waiting for IRS to give me the logon key in mail. I won't have the transcript by Feb 24.

You can get the transcript on online from IRS website

[Diriangén 12]

Information about the rule in the attached doc (short version) and here (link to goggle doc with detailed explanations)

Public-Charge-Does-This-Apply-To-Me-February-2020-ENGLISH.pdf

Edited February 19, 2020 by setsemas
adding an 'and'

[JuJu83 3]

6 hours ago, Boring Life said:

You can get the transcript on online from IRS website

Yes, but I was waiting for the activation code to activate my online access. I just got it 2 days ago. Only got my TY2018 transcript but should be good enough for my filing.

[Costa Rica Visa 0]

Greetings All, I am trying to understand the Public Charge Ground Ruling.  I am a US Citizen married to a Costa Rica citizen who has permanant residency Green Card in the US.  We would like to bring his son to the United States.  My understanding is I am the one who applies.   My question is this.  My parents were the co-financial sponsor for my husbands visa, he currently has normal health insurance we pay for. However myself and two of our daughters have medicaid.  Will me being on medicaid automatically disqualify my stepson from received this visa?  We are reading on the i130 website that we have to apply before February 24 in order for this not to be an issue? I am confused, any help much appreciated! 

[Letspaintcookies 2,310]

From what I read in other threads with a similar topic it's not a problem when the USC is on Medicaid or something similar. They only care about the foreigners. 

[Hzz99 3]

Heads up State Department approved it form DS-5540 for public charge and they're permitted to use it starting this Monday.

 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202002-1405-002

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

4 minutes ago, Hzz99 said:

Heads up State Department approved it form DS-5540 for public charge and they're permitted to use it starting this Monday.

 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202002-1405-002

Here is a draft copy of the DS-5540

 

https://www.balglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/DOS-Public_Charge_Questionnaire-draft.pdf

 

It covers Health Insurance, Assets, Income, Liabilities/debts....

Edited February 21, 2020 by missileman

[SalishSea 17,836]

3 hours ago, Letspaintcookies said:

From what I read in other threads with a similar topic it's not a problem when the USC is on Medicaid or something similar. They only care about the foreigners. 

Except that they may require a joint sponsor.

[sjfoley1 11]

Sorry if this is addressed earlier in this thread, but how likely do you all think someone could get denied due to the amount of debt they have? I have never used any kind of public assistance but I am worried as I have mortgage debt, a car loan, student loans and credit cards. I'm slowly working my way to paying off credit cards but it's slow moving. Is this really just to weed out people on public assistance or will they go as far as denying someone with not the greatest credit?

[Boiler 45,525]

We will have to wait and see how it is applied and what factors are deemed significant.