I-751 January 2017 Filers

[implife 318]

4 hours ago, JohnInTX said:

 

We just wait and see. I could explain our situation but that is getting too personal for a forum.

Hang in there! We shall overcome.

[JohnInTX 9]

1 hour ago, implife said:

Hang in there! We shall overcome.

Thanks is all we can do.

 

John

[TomEn 90]

17 hours ago, JohnInTX said:

The Washington Post writes this:"The initiative, in the works for more than a year, would make it harder for legal immigrants to receive either green cards or citizenship if they — or anyone in their households — has ever benefited from a long list of safety-net programs. These include the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), food stamps or even health insurance purchased on the Obamacare exchanges.

Three points are worth emphasizing here.

First is that, again, this policy would apply to immigrants who are in the country legally . It’s not about punishing people for “sneaking across the border,” that apparently unforgivable transgression that Trump officials have previously used to justify state-sanctioned child abuse. And, in any case, undocumented immigrants are  already excluded from nearly all federal anti-poverty programs.

 

As such, the proposal fits into President Trump’s agenda to dramatically cut levels of legal immigration, despite his rhetorical focus on the undocumented.

Second, this rule is ostensibly about making sure immigrants are self-sufficient and not a drain on public coffers. But NBC reports that the rule could disqualify immigrants making as much as 250 percent of the poverty level.

Moreover, an immigrant’s past use of benefits does not necessarily mean he or she will need them forever. Even the immigrant populations that you might expect to have the most trouble achieving economic self-sufficiency have proved to be a good long-term investment for the nation’s fiscal health.

For instance, refugees initially cost the government money; they need a lot of help, after all, given that they often arrive penniless and without proficient English-language skills. But over time, their work and wage prospects improve and, by their fifth year here, they pay more in taxes than they received in benefits on average, according to a government report commissioned and subsequently suppressed by the Trump administration last year. (The report eventually leaked to the New York Times.)

Third, and most important, is that under the proposal, it’s not only immigrants who must forgo safety-net benefits if they don’t wish to be penalized by the immigration system. It is  everyone in a given immigrant’s household.

That includes — based on an earlier leaked draft of the proposal published by The Post — an immigrant’s own children, even if those children are U.S. citizens who independently qualify for safety-net benefits.

That’s right. Legal-immigrant moms and dads may soon face a choice between (A) guaranteeing their U.S.-born children medical care, preschool classes and infant formula today, or (B) not threatening their own ability to qualify for green cards or citizenship tomorrow.

The universe of U.S.-citizen children who could be affected is large. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that, in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment alone in 2016, about 5.8 million citizen children had a noncitizen parent. 

The rule has not yet been issued. But various versions of it have leaked over the past year and a half. These have received coverage in foreign-language media, and fears about changes to immigration policy already appear to be discouraging participation in services meant to help low-income American children.

Including, perhaps most distressingly, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), a critical lifeline that provides access to food, prenatal care, breast pumps and other services for low-income mothers and children. WIC was listed in the draft rule published by The Post, and it’s not clear whether it remains in the latest version; but, either way, some immigrant parents and parents-to-be are already unenrolling, just in case.

“I had one family come and tell me, ‘Please remove us from WIC program, all services, medical, dental, everything,’ ” says Aliya S. Haq, the nutrition services supervisor at International Community Health Services in Seattle. The family had a child less than a year old who needed medical attention, but Haq could not convince them the benefits outweighed the risks of staying in the program.

Another patient, who is pregnant, asked to stop receiving prenatal assistance because she’s applying for citizenship.

Haq said the clinic’s WIC enrollment has fallen by about 10 percent over the past year; she worries daily about whether infant and maternal mortality rates will worsen, and whether there will be a negative effect on the brain development and long-term health of newborns.

Any policy that discourages, even a little bit, poor families’ use of such services is not just heartless. From an economic perspective, it is foolish. We need healthy, well-nourished, well-educated children to become healthy, well-nourished, productive workers.

But once again, children and the economic future they represent are the casualties of Trump’s casual cruelty."

 

So it does include people renewing their GC or applying for Citizenship. Just people like us.

It could effect me as my special needs US-citizen born (step-)son does have Medicaid for the past two years.

 

We just wait and see. I could explain our situation but that is getting too personal for a forum.

 

John

 

John,

 

You shoudl get that Master Researcher titlte here in VJ. THanks for the info sir. It deeply troubles us!

[Amhara 460]

Vox released the proposed rules: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10188201/DRAFT_NPRM_public_charge.0.pdf

This would apply to aliens applying for a visa, admission at a port of entry, or adjusting their status from a non-immigrant visa to permanent residence.  For those that already have their permanent residence, this proposal would not be relevant.

 

This would affect those that are waiting for the government to make a determination on the DACA cases (whether to make that law or not), and those that have their non-resident spouses on ACA coverage that is receiving a stipend to pay for part of the premiums (non-residents were not penalized on their tax return for not having health insurance).

 

The article mentioned this would affect 'legal immigrants', but I don't see any wording on this draft which would suggest this would apply to those that are permanent residents - green card holders.  Not only does the first page of this draft state that it's specifically for non-immigrants, the wording is for determining the "alien's" status.  People with US green cards are not aliens.  Additionally, there is section 212.26 that lists all the cases where this would not apply, including those admitted to the US as refugees or asylees and are adjusting to a permanent resident status and VAWA self-petitioners.

 

I am really not trying to be a 'know-it-all' and, like I said, I am neutral towards Trump.  I am really trying to understand how this proposal would affect us - or really, anyone else for that matter.  I don't believe the media always gives the true facts, and this may be a case of that.  This draft says nothing about permanent residents trying to get citizenship (us).  It could affect those that hold a non-resident status, such as students, visitors, and HB1 workers that give birth to a baby, who is then a US citizen and that non-resident gets their child on one of the programs.  Then it becomes a matter of the government questioning if the non-resident can support themselves as part of their petition to become a resident.  Before we could submit my husband's adjustment of status, I had to agree that he would not become a public charge, so nothing new there.  This could apply if a US citizen marries an alien that does not have status and their US citizen children are on benefits, then their case becomes harder to overcome, unless after marriage, the family no longer needs those benefits. 

 

So I say all that to say, this would not affect us.  However, if and when this regulation gets to the point of publication, anyone can access it at www.regulations.gov.  If this situation affected me, I would be sure to be in contact with the government folks listed here and my US Representatives.  This is not an example of Trump changing laws and this is not outside the scope of the executive branch.

 

That article is really slanted and I wish they would do their research - it's an example of irresponsible journalism.  The article starts out saying this would make it harder for people to get green cards, (obtain permanent residence) and proceeds to use wording that relates to all immigrants when the draft (if this is the draft the article is referring to) only discusses aliens.  Causing a lot of anxiety for nothing.  if I am wrong, please share your input.

[TomEn 90]

@Amhara So in a cruz, this proposed change in law would not affect my citizenship application if my husband (who is eligible for SSA) applies for disability assisstance?

[Amhara 460]

1 hour ago, TomEn said:

@Amhara So in a cruz, this proposed change in law would not affect my citizenship application if my husband (who is eligible for SSA) applies for disability assisstance?

Not if this is the proposed “leaked” regulation the articles are discussing.  If you were applying for a K-1, that could affect the case, but that’s no different from current situations since the USC fiancé would need a sponsor to bring over the foreign fiancé anyway.  

 

Regulations are not law changes, they are clarifications of how the current law should be applied.  Laws generally treat USCs and LPRs as the same, so if this were to apply to LPRs and not aliens, this would be a major no-no.

[Amhara 460]

I do wonder if this could affect LPRs returning into the US from foreign travel, though.  I think there is a means-test that agents can apply when LPRs are returning to the US.  But in that situation, no one would have documents to be able for a border agent to make a proper decision.  Hmmm, how would that work?

[Asilarmani 8]

I am the only one who is waiting for i751 with n400 combo 

[gabreigns 75]

Just had my combo 751 and n400 interview.

Here is my experience.

 

 

[addiction 0]

We got a letter about a month ago saying the extension of residency will now be 18 months instead of the original one year. Fortunately, we already have been approved for naturalization.

[cablewyres 38]

Is it true that GC’s now need to be recieved

with signature? What if you miss the mail man or are away for work, what would happen? Has anyone experienced this upon receiving their green card delivery after approval?

[JohnInTX 9]

47 minutes ago, cablewyres said:

Is it true that GC’s now need to be recieved

with signature? What if you miss the mail man or are away for work, what would happen? Has anyone experienced this upon receiving their green card delivery after approval?

I also read that somewhere on the uscis site. Normally you can reschedule the delivery or pick it up at the postoffice. After 7 days normally mail is send back. 

 

John

[cablewyres 38]

10 hours ago, JohnInTX said:

I also read that somewhere on the uscis site. Normally you can reschedule the delivery or pick it up at the postoffice. After 7 days normally mail is send back. 

 

John

Yeah, I was wondering if this is true for those who recently got their GC. Thanks for the info. Good to know on what to do just in case no one's home to sign and receive the gc if they do require signature.

Edited August 22, 2018 by cablewyres

[JohnInTX 9]

36 minutes ago, cablewyres said:

Yeah, I was wondering if this is true for those who recently got their GC. Thanks for the info. Good to know on what to do just in case no one's home to sign and receive the gc if they do require signature.

https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-begin-using-more-secure-mail-delivery-service

 

John

[Tania09 8]

On 8/22/2018 at 3:09 AM, cablewyres said:

Is it true that GC’s now need to be recieved

with signature? What if you miss the mail man or are away for work, what would happen? Has anyone experienced this upon receiving their green card delivery after approval?

 I got my green card today: no signature, they just left it in the mail box