Mega Thread for All questions regarding Public Charge

[KathCali 47]

57 minutes ago, azblk said:

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.

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

Thank you! 

[bumpyusa 1]

I have been watching the new and see where the Government is proposing to deny Green Cards and Removal of Conditions if someone was to have used benefits like, Obamacare, food stamps, WIC, etc.  I am concerned that if President Trump signs this, Many, Many people will face major problems in the future.   What should one do to prepare for this if it is signed by the President.  My understanding is that it does not require congressional approval.  The Government is considering anyone who uses taxpayers money as "deadbeats"  It could also require the sponsor, or whoever to repay all the benefits.  Anyone else concerned about this?  Any suggestions.   read this....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/08/13/how-to-stop-president-trumps-latest-attack-on-immigrants/?utm_term=.c166359edadb

[Crazy Cat 39,313]

There have been many, many posts concerning this, and there are a lot of opinions.....search and you will find the mega-thread.

[GJ&Rach 12]

10 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

Extending non immigrant status, is that renewing the 10 year green card?

[Dave&Kal 26]

11 hours ago, GJ&Rach said:

Extending non immigrant status, is that renewing the 10 year green card?

If you hold a green card then you are an LPR ( Legal Permanent Resident).  A green card holder is considered as an immigrant so non-immigrant status has nothing to do with that. 

[Dave&Kal 26]

I read in the news that "  Already, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo declared he would sue if the administration penalizes people accepting “basic safety net provisions." "

 

Source:     https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/welfare-immigrants-trump-public-charge-rule.html

 

Also an interesting article from Stephen Miller's uncle ! https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/stephen-millers-uncle-watching-in-horror-at-trumps-immigration-plan

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[JackG 10]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 2:26 PM, 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?  

I apologize to everyone, I didn't get updated when posts were made and didn't realize what I had posted contributed to much discussion. The public comment period does exist for those items that are considered rule changes, but "immigration policy" is mostly done through administrative action and does not need to be put through the public comment period. This is why there are many problems right now, because the administration has blanket authority on immigration. We can always hope for them to factor in public comments on any of these policy changes. But again, this policy has not been implemented yet and may not be. It has been floated and sometimes an administration does that to gauge public sentiment. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Administration has been very unpredictable when it comes to certain policies. It is best not to worry too much until we all know more.

 

As far as for those asking what to do now, for those of you that have received some sort of subsidies from the government, my recommendation depending upon what the subsidy is, I suggest keep doing it (in other words, the damage is done and stopping now, would not necessarily change it too much in the eyes of immigration--at least that appears to be the way they are implementing a lot of rules). If you are receiving certain benefits and you can't go without them (ie., welfare or food stamps), by all means you should continue with those benefits. Your well-being either through health insurance or social security are too important. But if you can get off, for instance, then that could work in your favor if ever put in this position of justifying why you took benefits. The government looks more favorably on people that use these programs as a simple safety net only when needed and then get off them.

 

On Obamacare, purchasing insurance through the exchange just simply allows you to buy a certain level of insurance from a health plan. Yes, it is true that most people getting insurance in this manner need, and get, subsidies of some sort, which is potentially the issue.

 

All in all, if one is really concerned about something I would suggest speaking to an immigration lawyer. If you can't afford one, there are many immigration law clinics around the country that help immigrants in need. I wish we didn't live in a society that put us all in these binds, but if we can wait it out I believe things will return to a more predictable status in the future. Best of luck to all.

 

(For those of you that are looking for articles on this issue and didn't see the post, I included the Washington Post article on the first page of comments.)

[KathCali 47]

3 hours ago, JackG said:

I apologize to everyone, I didn't get updated when posts were made and didn't realize what I had posted contributed to much discussion. The public comment period does exist for those items that are considered rule changes, but "immigration policy" is mostly done through administrative action and does not need to be put through the public comment period. This is why there are many problems right now, because the administration has blanket authority on immigration. We can always hope for them to factor in public comments on any of these policy changes. But again, this policy has not been implemented yet and may not be. It has been floated and sometimes an administration does that to gauge public sentiment. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Administration has been very unpredictable when it comes to certain policies. It is best not to worry too much until we all know more.

 

As far as for those asking what to do now, for those of you that have received some sort of subsidies from the government, my recommendation depending upon what the subsidy is, I suggest keep doing it (in other words, the damage is done and stopping now, would not necessarily change it too much in the eyes of immigration--at least that appears to be the way they are implementing a lot of rules). If you are receiving certain benefits and you can't go without them (ie., welfare or food stamps), by all means you should continue with those benefits. Your well-being either through health insurance or social security are too important. But if you can get off, for instance, then that could work in your favor if ever put in this position of justifying why you took benefits. The government looks more favorably on people that use these programs as a simple safety net only when needed and then get off them.

 

On Obamacare, purchasing insurance through the exchange just simply allows you to buy a certain level of insurance from a health plan. Yes, it is true that most people getting insurance in this manner need, and get, subsidies of some sort, which is potentially the issue.

 

All in all, if one is really concerned about something I would suggest speaking to an immigration lawyer. If you can't afford one, there are many immigration law clinics around the country that help immigrants in need. I wish we didn't live in a society that put us all in these binds, but if we can wait it out I believe things will return to a more predictable status in the future. Best of luck to all.

 

(For those of you that are looking for articles on this issue and didn't see the post, I included the Washington Post article on the first page of comments.)

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. This is what I had been thinking, more or less, and we are going to stay as we are until we hear more and then we will switch health insurance if we have to.

[Dave&Kal 26]

19 hours ago, JackG said:

"immigration policy" is mostly done through administrative action and does not need to be put through the public comment period

On March 29, the Department of Homeland Security sent a version of the proposal to OMB, which is reviewing it for conflicts with existing law. Next, it will be published as a proposed rule that the public can comment on before it's finalized.

 

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/10/609758169/under-a-trump-proposal-lawful-immigrants-might-shun-medical-care

Pushback has already begun against the leaked draft proposal, even though it is in the earliest stages of the rulemaking process.

Washington state's Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, is sending staff in mid-May to meet with the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is vetting the proposed rule. Inslee sent a letter on April 24 urging OMB Director Mick Mulvaney to consider the impact on tax-paying, lawful immigrants.

[Dave&Kal 26]

 

The proposal says immigrants would have the option of posting a minimum $10,000 bond to help overcome a determination that they are likely to be a "public charge." 

 

Unbelievable! total bullying! Inhumane to threaten legal immigrants for using what they were eligible and legal to use and now like a loser baby crying for the gift you gave away and now asking it back!  

Edited August 16, 2018 by Dave&Kal

[JackG 10]

58 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

 

The proposal says immigrants would have the option of posting a minimum $10,000 bond to help overcome a determination that they are likely to be a "public charge." 

 

Unbelievable! total bullying! Inhumane to threaten legal immigrants for using what they were eligible and legal to use and now like a loser baby crying for the gift you gave away and now asking it back!  

I love that analogy, it's so true!! And to respond to your other point, yes, the draft was sent to OMB. This particular policy is apparently proceeding as regulation, I stand corrected. ;-) I had not realized that they had proceeded with the a decision to go about it in rulemaking. Though my statement generally is true. They make much of the immigration policy through administrative action w/o rulemaking, i.e., through Executive Orders or "guidance" issued from the Department of Justice or the DHS. It was true of all administrations, not just the current one. It's such a flippant way for the government to make policies that affect millions of lives.

 

On a side note, did you see the title of the proposed rule? "To ensure that foreign nationals coming to the United States or adjusting status to permanent residence, either temporarily or permanently, have adequate means of support while in the United States, and that foreign nationals do not become dependent on public benefits for support." This is farcical because generally, that is what the affidavit of support does. But we must carry on. . .

[Dave&Kal 26]

35 minutes ago, JackG said:

 

On a side note, did you see the title of the proposed rule

All i have seen so far is just the same news in different formats with more or less the same conent. I have got more confusions than clarifications and my presence here is just to find out what exactly happening and how worried i should be! 

 

The news content is so conflicting. I cant still say for sure if this purposal is targeting those who want to get permenamt residancy (green card) or also those seeking citizenship? While by law public charge is not part of the requirements or a test against the citizenship applicant ( i provided the source news in earlier posts) but i can see in the news something opposit that! And while we have learned the administration is working on a shortcut to bypass any congresional approval, i am wondering if adding public charge test to citizenship would be something the administration would be allowed without formal rule making to practice!

 

I believe we should not let our silence give consent to what is going on in the country!  I remember the moment i was given the US immigrant visa ( US consolate in Montreal) , the officer smiling at me saying" welcome to the US" and continues in a joking tone "now you can have your wepon!" I was a bit shocked but smiled back and thanked him and walked away! I was thinking and still thinking why is it that there is no such purposal or effert in fighting guns bringing death to counless lives  but instead they just go for the most defensless part of the society! The immigrants!  Probably the one who cant beat the horse, beats the saddle! !

[TBoneTX 43,124]

The draft is in the very early stages of review.  It will almost certainly not survive in its present form.  It's hard to do so, but try to relax as events evolve.

[mirrortraveler 1]

6 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

 

The proposal says immigrants would have the option of posting a minimum $10,000 bond to help overcome a determination that they are likely to be a "public charge." 

 

Unbelievable! total bullying! Inhumane to threaten legal immigrants for using what they were eligible and legal to use and now like a loser baby crying for the gift you gave away and now asking it back!  

@Dave&Kal: Could you link us to the source for that? Sorry if it was already posted and I just didn't see it. Just need it for reference purposes. 

Thanks! 

[Dave&Kal 26]

5 minutes ago, mirrortraveler said:

@Dave&Kal: Could you link us to the source for that? Sorry if it was already posted and I just didn't see it. Just need it for reference purposes

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/10/609758169/under-a-trump-proposal-lawful-immigrants-might-shun-medical-care