Mega Thread for All questions regarding Public Charge

[CarlHamilton 252]

38 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

Well anything anywhere is fake news! As HE says! Probably false news is your source of all news!

 

Here is one of the links, if you just do a little googling and dont wait for speenfeeding, then you can find more links yourself:

 

http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/new-trump-proposal-to-restrict-legal-immigration-even-worse-than-media-says

 

Also, that article is from August 23.  The reg just came out two days ago. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by CarlHamilton

[CarlHamilton 252]

28 minutes ago, Boiler said:

CEPR has been described as both progressive^[7] and left-leaning.^[3][8][5] CEPR is based in Washington, DC.

 

Wiki

More importantly, that article was published a month before the regulation we're discussing came out.  Tells you everything you need to know about the level of discourse around here. 

[Dave&Kal 26]

2 minutes ago, CarlHamilton said:

I don't know what "speenfeeding" is, but I actually read the entire regulation on Saturday.  Have you read it?  Can you explain what is being taken back?  What the rule says, and even your alarmist source acknowledges (read it again please) is that "in the future" (meaning after the new rule takes effect) immigrants will be discouraged from taking "gifts" (your term, which I find amusing) from the public purse and if they're likely to do so, they have to post a bond.  No pre-existing benefits are being repaid, but future "gifts" will come out of the bond, and for good reason.  The law has required immigrants not to be a burden on the public purse since the 1800s.  It's just that enforcement got limp-wristed under Clinton.  But to go back to your gifts, if you don't want to pay anything back, simply don't ask for taxpayer money going forward.  Do you get it now?

Big fingers and small keyboard! 🤣🤣 i was trying to type spoon feeding!

 

Later when i get home will read this and answer accordingly. Just in a mechanic shop 😁

 

Like i explained in my very first post, this rule is much better or at least not as bad as the draft was! But i know one thing for sure! What these people are doing is not intending to help the country! 200 years of policy making made the US we know today! You cant pick up the hammer and smash down everything because you think you know everything and everyone else were dumb! Time will show!

[CarlHamilton 252]

2 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

🤣🤣

😁

200 years of policy making made the US we know today! You cant pick up the hammer and smash down everything because you think you know everything and everyone else were dumb!

The "public charge" prohibition has been part of immigration law for 130 of those 200 years.  Nothing is being smashed with a hammer. 

[KathCali 47]

Based on the actual proposal (not news articles) found at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0921_USCIS_Proposed-Rule-Public-Charge.pdf - can anyone please clarify whether emergency only medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) will remain not considered as a public charge?

[KathCali 47]

Second question: Am I also correct in thinking that if my USC spouse is covered by medicaid but I, the immigrant, am not, that is okay under the new proposal? Or are they still including household members? I read through the whole thing but it was very long and confusing and I'm still unclear on that.

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 hour ago, CarlHamilton said:

Also, that article is from August 23.  The reg just came out two days 

I just did a quick search on google looking for $10,000 bond and didnt have a chance to check the dates. I also saw that news on Sunday but needs more time to look and find it!  But what difference does it make for those who have put their heads in the sand! At the end, somebody is going to say, that was fake news, this is left that is right.... 

 

You know what, this new rule is GREAT, this administration is EXCELLENT, i mean everything they do is great! Ok? Now be happy and keep your head in the sand and enjoy rest of your life!  There is no point teaching an old dog new tricks! And i dont have more time wasting in here! Be happy with whatever makes you happy! 

 

 

[Boiler 43,462]

@Dave&Kal seem very knowledgeable on the subject.

[CarlHamilton 252]

9 minutes ago, KathCali said:

Based on the actual proposal (not news articles) found at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0921_USCIS_Proposed-Rule-Public-Charge.pdf - can anyone please clarify whether emergency only medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) will remain not considered as a public charge?

Ah, now we're talking facts, not fiction.  I think the answer to your question is yes.  Here's why.  The proposed reg excludes from Medicaid benefits, among other things:

"(A) Benefits paid for an emergency medical condition as described in section 1903(v) of

Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v), 42 CFR 440.255(c);"

 

So emergency benefits would be permitted.  But how, you may ask, are these defined?   42 CFR 440.255 states:

              

"§ 440.255 Limited services available to

certain aliens.

(a)

FFP for services.

FFP is available for services provided to aliens de-

scribed in this section which are nec-

essary to treat an emergency medical

condition as defined in paragraphs

(b)(1) and (c) or services for pregnant

women described in paragraph (b)(2).

(b) Legalized aliens eligible only for

emergency services and services for preg-

nant women. Aliens granted lawful tem-

porary resident status, or lawful per-

manent resident status under sections

245A, 210 or 210A of the Immigration

and Nationality Act, who are not in

one of the exempt groups described in

§§ 435.406(a)(3) and 436.406(a)(3) and who

meet all other requirements for Med-

icaid will be eligible for the following

services—

(1) Emergency services required after

the sudden onset of a medical condition

manifesting itself by acute symptoms

of sufficient severity (including severe

pain) such that the absence of imme-

diate medical attention could reason-

ably be expected to result in:

(i) Placing the patient’s health in se-

rious jeopardy;

(ii) Serious impairment to bodily

functions; or

(iii) Serious dysfunction of any bod-

ily organ or part.

(2) Services for pregnant women

which are included in the approved

State plan. These services include rou-

tine prenatal care, labor and delivery,

and routine post-partum care. States,

at their option, may provide additional

plan services for the treatment of con-

ditions which may complicate the

pregnancy or delivery.

(c) Effective January 1, 1987, aliens

who are not lawfully admitted for per-

manent residence in the United States

or permanently residing in the United

States under the color of law must re-

ceive the services necessary to treat

the condition defined in paragraph (1)

of this section if—

(1) The alien has, after sudden onset,

a medical condition (including emer-

gency labor and delivery) manifesting

itself by acute symptoms of sufficient

severity (including severe pain) such

that the absence of immediate medical

attention could reasonably be expected

to result in:

(i) Placing the patient’s health in se-

rious jeopardy;

(ii) Serious impairment to bodily

functions; or

(iii) Serious dysfunction of any bod-

ily organ or part, and

(2) The alien otherwise meets the re-

quirements in §§ 435.406(c) and 436.406(c)

of this subpart

§ 440.25

to result in:

 

 

 

 

 

[KathCali 47]

3 minutes ago, CarlHamilton said:

Ah, now we're talking facts, not fiction.  I think the answer to your question is yes.  Here's why.  The proposed reg excludes from Medicaid benefits, among other things:

"(A) Benefits paid for an emergency medical condition as described in section 1903(v) of

Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v), 42 CFR 440.255(c);"

 

So emergency benefits would be permitted.  But how, you may ask, are these defined?   42 CFR 440.255 states:

              

"§ 440.255 Limited services available to

certain aliens.

(a)

FFP for services.

FFP is available for services provided to aliens de-

scribed in this section which are nec-

essary to treat an emergency medical

condition as defined in paragraphs

(b)(1) and (c) or services for pregnant

women described in paragraph (b)(2).

(b) Legalized aliens eligible only for

emergency services and services for preg-

nant women. Aliens granted lawful tem-

porary resident status, or lawful per-

manent resident status under sections

245A, 210 or 210A of the Immigration

and Nationality Act, who are not in

one of the exempt groups described in

§§ 435.406(a)(3) and 436.406(a)(3) and who

meet all other requirements for Med-

icaid will be eligible for the following

services—

(1) Emergency services required after

the sudden onset of a medical condition

manifesting itself by acute symptoms

of sufficient severity (including severe

pain) such that the absence of imme-

diate medical attention could reason-

ably be expected to result in:

(i) Placing the patient’s health in se-

rious jeopardy;

(ii) Serious impairment to bodily

functions; or

(iii) Serious dysfunction of any bod-

ily organ or part.

(2) Services for pregnant women

which are included in the approved

State plan. These services include rou-

tine prenatal care, labor and delivery,

and routine post-partum care. States,

at their option, may provide additional

plan services for the treatment of con-

ditions which may complicate the

pregnancy or delivery.

(c) Effective January 1, 1987, aliens

who are not lawfully admitted for per-

manent residence in the United States

or permanently residing in the United

States under the color of law must re-

ceive the services necessary to treat

the condition defined in paragraph (1)

of this section if—

(1) The alien has, after sudden onset,

a medical condition (including emer-

gency labor and delivery) manifesting

itself by acute symptoms of sufficient

severity (including severe pain) such

that the absence of immediate medical

attention could reasonably be expected

to result in:

(i) Placing the patient’s health in se-

rious jeopardy;

(ii) Serious impairment to bodily

functions; or

(iii) Serious dysfunction of any bod-

ily organ or part, and

(2) The alien otherwise meets the re-

quirements in §§ 435.406(c) and 436.406(c)

of this subpart

§ 440.25

to result in:

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you so much! 

[CarlHamilton 252]

9 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

I just did a quick search on google looking for $10,000 bond and didnt have a chance to check the dates. I also saw that news on Sunday but needs more time to look and find it!  But what difference does it make for those who have put their heads in the sand! At the end, somebody is going to say, that was fake news, this is left that is right.... 

 

You know what, this new rule is GREAT, this administration is EXCELLENT, i mean everything they do is great! Ok? Now be happy and keep your head in the sand and enjoy rest of your life!  There is no point teaching an old dog new tricks! And i dont have more time wasting in here! Be happy with whatever makes you happy! 

 

 

You just don't get it, do you?  Read the damn regulation before you spread misinformation.  That's all.  I read it, I know what's in it, I don't rely on third parties to digest it for me.  You do, and your sources are from before the reg was even published.  Read it and then we can talk about it.

Edited September 25, 2018 by TBoneTX
inflammatory text removed

[Dave&Kal 26]

18 minutes ago, KathCali said:

Based on the actual proposal (not news articles) found at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0921_USCIS_Proposed-Rule-Public-Charge.pdf - can anyone please clarify whether emergency only medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) will remain not considered as a public charge?

Sorry i can not comment on that but what i have noticed is that the administration by clouding around the subject, try to scare off as many applicans as they can even those who are not subject to the changes, but out of fear, a lot of people are leaving those benefits even though they dont have to!  If i were you would look for legal help ( you can find some free ones if you google) do not put any hopes on answers you get through the forums for such impotant matters. 

[KathCali 47]

2 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

Sorry i can not comment on that but what i have noticed is that the administration by clouding around the subject, try to scare off as many applicans as they can even those who are not subject to the changes, but out of fear, a lot of people are leaving those benefits even though they dont have to!  If i were you would look for legal help ( you can find some free ones if you google) do not put any hopes on answers you get through the forums for such impotant matters. 

Thank you! I am also asking my lawyer but wanted to get input here too so I could gather as much info as possible

[CarlHamilton 252]

27 minutes ago, KathCali said:

Second question: Am I also correct in thinking that if my USC spouse is covered by medicaid but I, the immigrant, am not, that is okay under the new proposal? Or are they still including household members? I read through the whole thing but it was very long and confusing and I'm still unclear on that.

Yes, you are correct.  The public charge determination would pertain to the alien, and the benefits in question would have to be received by the alien:

 

§ 212.21 Definitions for Public Charge.

For the purposes of 8 CFR 212.20 through 212.24, the following definitions apply:

(a) Public Charge. Public charge means an alien who receives one or more public

benefit, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section.

Needless to say, I'm not giving you legal advice.  But I'm glad we can have a conversation based on what the thing actually says. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by CarlHamilton

[TBoneTX 43,069]

Five posts of a bickering or off-topic nature have been removed.  Calm down, please.