Mega Thread for All questions regarding Public Charge

[Little_Vixen 1,869]

I'm sure this subject worries many right now. I'm currently in the process of a k1 Visa, poe early September. My fiance has children who's mother passed away. He receives social security checks for them because of her passing. I figure it's not a public charge type of thing, but it does worry me. As far as I know he never asked for assistance. Never needed it either. He takes care of his own and earns way above the poverty guidelines. Does any of you know if this would qualify as one of the types of assistance possibly barring me from a green card?

[GJ&Rach 12]

My kids and I had benefits both before and after hubby arrived. However he never had any benefits besides being on the tax return with the EITC. We lived in a home I had rented and I received section 8 while living there. I and the kids received food stamps for a while after we married but he did not. The kids and I were in Medicaid, he was uninsured. All this changed when he also got a good job with benefits.. It allowed all of us to drop the help programs. But now I worry it will be held against him.

[gypsyqueen 103]

All we can do right now is keep an eye for this possible new policy. We'll do what we do best - we cope. I understand it's upsetting for others. You have this added to the things you worry about. Just take it easy and we'll take it one day at a time.

[aditaha 4]

Is it true that there is case backlog at USCIS and USCIS is stripping away citizenship from people?

And even green card holders and citizens are being deported for minor crimes?

What is going on in country ?

or it is just leftist propaganda against trump administration?

 

are we legal green card holders affected in any way or so ?

 

 

[mhis82 11]

Yes striping away citizenship of people who shouldn't get it in the first place, such as through fraud or people changed their identity for immigration purposes.

Also this is true people can possibly get deported for certain crimes such as Drug offenses, fraud, Aggregated felony many others serious crimes.

If you think you do not meet a "Good Moral Character " please stay where you are.

 

[JFH 12,189]

Many of the things you have  mentioned are not new.

 

USCIS has always had a backlog. Look how long it took for our initial petitions to be approved. In my case, my I-130 took 5.5 months. Almost all of that time it was sitting on a shelf waiting for someone to get to it. It doesn't take 5.5 months to work one I-130. The wait is longer now because the backlog is constantly growing. As the population grows, there are more petitions for family members and employees, etc. Nothing new there.

 

Yes, citizenship is being removed from people who committed fraud or misrepresentation to get citizenship, a visa or green card. That has always been the policy. Nothing new there. 

 

Green card holders and other non-citizens have always been deported after serving prison time for crimes. Nothing new there. Minor crimes? What's a minor crime? I've yet to hear of someone being deported for shoplifting a loaf of bread or running a red light but if you have found evidence of such cases, please share. 

 

Legal green card card holders have nothing to fear, in my opinion, if they live a law-abiding life. Nothing has changed there. We have been granted a privilege to be able to live here. I moved here to be with my husband. There's no way I would do anything to jeopardize that and lose this great privilege. But I'm not the kind of person to commit crimes (however minor) or lie to immigration officials anyway. So, I'm not worried. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by JFH

[JFH 12,189]

*~*~*moved from "US citizenship discussion" to "general immigration discussion"*~*~*

[A&H2018 146]

They created a special task force very small who is going after the worse of the worse, people who totally faked their idenity to revoke their citizenship. It is very small and directed, nothing real news worthy except something for USCIS director to talk to Donald about. Task forces like this are always created and dismnatled in government organizations over the years.

 

There has been no information about deporting a citizen with minor crime history. There was a couple cases of a LPR who had something like domestic violence etc 15 years ago but the full details never came out. There have been a couple people received at the interview but they had prior deportation orders and ignored them.

 

The memebers om VJ are not near these types of cases I bet.

 

[Dave&Kal 26]

My question is;

 

Lets say the new proposal gets into effect and starts right tomorrow and being as bad as the news reports that to be. What happens to all applicants who have already applied before tomorrow's date? Would they be kept being processed based the law which was effective at the time of their application or will they continued being processed based on the new changes?  

 

I am not talking if the law itself is retroactive or not, my question is about its effectivness and the date it can start affecting the applicants.

 

Common sense tells me it should start being effective from te day it is released and effecting those starting from that day on! Am i thinking right?

[TBoneTX 43,022]

2 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

Common sense tells me it should start being effective from te day it is released and effecting those starting from that day on!

Unless a later date is specified.

People here are really far too worried about this.  The news reports about it are slanted toward drama, as are most news reports about almost anything ("if it bleeds, it leads").  In addition, unlike the case with previous administrations, President Trump can't scratch his hindquarters if some Federal judge disallows it.

[Dave&Kal 26]

13 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

Common sense tells me it should start being effective from te day it is released and effecting those starting from that day on! Am i thinking right?

 

well, to answer myself and also bring it to other's attention, it seems my understanding of effectiveness of new rules was not correct. it seems the way it is being handled under USCIS is not how it is done in other countries such as Canada.  Today when i was reading about some new changes i noticed it seems when the new law comes, starts affecting everyone in line  with those started in the past up to now! ( unless by the time the law arrives, your case is concluded and resulted).it explains:

 

"  The memorandum took effect the day it was issued, on June 28, 2018. If, therefore, you have already filed an application with USCIS, you should consult with an immigration attorney to assess the risks going forward with your case.  "

 

You can red the full story in here: https://www.nolo.com/legal-updates/submitting-immigration-applications-riskier-under-new-uscis-policy-denied-applicants-sent-to-removal-proceedings.html

 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[Dave&Kal 26]

I read this article (   In general, immigrants who are LPRs are not subject to the public charge test. It is aliens who are seeking to become LPRs (through a visa application or an application for admission or adjustment of status) who have to convince a USCIS or consular officer that they are not likely to become a public charge.)  and continues (  LPRs do not have to meet a public charge test to become citizens, and there is no public charge test for immigrants or U.S. citizens seeking to sponsor an immigrant. )  And as indicated in the news ( which has made all of us concerned) that the administration is going after the change of definition for public charge, simply because it is something in the hand and power and does not need congressional approval! So what i am trying to understand is, how the change of the public charge definition could change the way it applies! if it wasn't used before against the citizenship applicants, so that should remain intact! right? or wouldn't that need congressional approval for changing citizenship application requirements? ( because that would be a new requirement for the applicant and that is not something the administration have the power to enforce unilaterally! ) am i thinking right? 

 

 

For further info, here is what USCIS website also says:

For benefits adjudicated by USCIS, whether a person is likely to become a public charge is usually considered when someone is trying to become a permanent resident (get a green card). It is also considered when someone applies for certain non-immigrant or other temporary benefits, for example by extending non-immigrant status within the United States.

There are certain groups of people who are either exempt from public charge, or may get a waiver for public charge when applying for a green card or other benefits with USCIS. These include:

1. Refugees
2. Asylum applicants
3. Refugees and asylees applying for adjustment to permanent resident status
4. Amerasian Immigrants (for their initial admission)
5. Individuals granted relief under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA)
6. Individuals granted relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)
7. Individuals granted relief under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA)
8. Individuals applying for a T Visa
9. Individuals applying for a U Visa
10. Individuals who possess a T visa and are trying to become a permanent resident (get a green card)
11. Individuals who possess a U visa and are trying to become a permanent resident (get a green card)
12. Applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
13. Certain applicants under the LIFE Act Provisions

 

source: https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge

Edited August 13, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[TBoneTX 43,022]

Some Federal judge will put a stop to it.

[KathCali 47]

I keep hearing about the "public comment" period for policy changes. It is apparently 30-60 days typically but can be up to 180 days in some instances. It is for the public to comment on the proposed rule change and from what I have read, it sounds as though it is mandatory to have this, and that this would be pertinent to whether or not it is passed. (link: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf)

 

Does anyone know more about the public comment process, and could speak to how it might affect this policy change in particular? 

[azblk 338]

5 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

I read this article (   In general, immigrants who are LPRs are not subject to the public charge test. It is aliens who are seeking to become LPRs (through a visa application or an application for admission or adjustment of status) who have to convince a USCIS or consular officer that they are not likely to become a public charge.)  and continues (  LPRs do not have to meet a public charge test to become citizens, and there is no public charge test for immigrants or U.S. citizens seeking to sponsor an immigrant. )  And as indicated in the news ( which has made all of us concerned) that the administration is going after the change of definition for public charge, simply because it is something in the hand and power and does not need congressional approval! So what i am trying to understand is, how the change of the public charge definition could change the way it applies! if it wasn't used before against the citizenship applicants, so that should remain intact! right? or wouldn't that need congressional approval for changing citizenship application requirements? ( because that would be a new requirement for the applicant and that is not something the administration have the power to enforce unilaterally! ) am i thinking right? 

 

 

For further info, here is what USCIS website also says:

For benefits adjudicated by USCIS, whether a person is likely to become a public charge is usually considered when someone is trying to become a permanent resident (get a green card). It is also considered when someone applies for certain non-immigrant or other temporary benefits, for example by extending non-immigrant status within the United States.

There are certain groups of people who are either exempt from public charge, or may get a waiver for public charge when applying for a green card or other benefits with USCIS. These include:

1. Refugees
2. Asylum applicants
3. Refugees and asylees applying for adjustment to permanent resident status
4. Amerasian Immigrants (for their initial admission)
5. Individuals granted relief under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA)
6. Individuals granted relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA)
7. Individuals granted relief under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act (HRIFA)
8. Individuals applying for a T Visa
9. Individuals applying for a U Visa
10. Individuals who possess a T visa and are trying to become a permanent resident (get a green card)
11. Individuals who possess a U visa and are trying to become a permanent resident (get a green card)
12. Applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
13. Certain applicants under the LIFE Act Provisions

 

source: https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge

You are correct. There is no public charge test when naturalizing. The only affects people that are either AOSing or DCF. The problem with this proposal is that it penalizes intending immigrants even benefits that they were legally entitled to and those that were not used by them. Hypothetically if your sponsor at anyone time used a means tested benefit or your USC child used WIC, then you can be denied.

1 minute ago, KathCali said:

I keep hearing about the "public comment" period for policy changes. It is apparently 30-60 days typically but can be up to 180 days in some instances. It is for the public to comment on the proposed rule change and from what I have read, it sounds as though it is mandatory to have this, and that this would be pertinent to whether or not it is passed. (link: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf)

 

Does anyone know more about the public comment process, and could speak to how it might affect this policy change in particular? 

on the uscis site. there is a link to the public comment instructions.