Mega Thread for All questions regarding Public Charge

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

4 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

You seem to have screws too tight! It is NOT only that!

No, I actually read the whole regulation with the proposed changes and quite frankly I am happy with it. 

 

We have seen so many posts on here where people have brought in a family member then right away wondering what kind of benefits that the family members qualify for. Which to me is uncalled for and they shouldn't receive any benefits at all.

4 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

I just noticed it is moved ! That might have caused some kind of confusion for some though. Since what i was reffering to was specific to the news i posted before.

What you are posting is what this Megathread is designed to talk about.

[Dave&Kal 26]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

No, I actually read the whole regulation with the proposed changes and quite frankly I am happy with it. 

 

We have seen so many posts on here where people have brought in a family member then right away wondering what kind of benefits that the family members qualify for. Which to me is uncalled for and they shouldn't receive any benefits at all.

Well those 10 , 20 or 100 cases you might have seen does not represent milions of others who live and do differently. That is unfair to judge all based on few!

[jb914 33]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

If you have a child and one of the of the parents is a PR then this shouldn't be a problem. But I have seen first hand how illegal parents we still receive SNAP benefits for a USC child.  All the while I have four kids with my PR wife and we don't qualify for anything. But CA will go out of their way to help Illegals qualify.

You have to apply for these programs as a family, and include SSN/Alien number for all household members.

 

You could have one parent and the children be citizens, and the other parent be applying for AOS.

 

There is nothing 'illegal' about being here on a legal Visa, and winding up with an unexpected pregnancy, so I am not sure why you are bringing that into it. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

1 minute ago, jb914 said:

You have to apply for these programs as a family, and include SSN/Alien number for all household members.

 

You could have one parent and the children be citizens, and the other parent be applying for AOS.

 

There is nothing 'illegal' about being here on a legal Visa, and winding up with an unexpected pregnancy, so I am not sure why you are bringing that into it. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring

No, you can have one child be a USC and the family will then qualify for SNAP. I am not trying to blow smoke at all but I have seen it first hand. 

[Boiler 43,465]

Could be worse

 

Could be like Canada.

[Dave&Kal 26]

7 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

No, I actually read the whole regulation with the proposed changes and quite frankly I am happy with it. 

 

We have seen so many posts on here where people have brought in a family member then right away wondering what kind of benefits that the family members qualify for. Which to me is uncalled for and they shouldn't receive any benefits at all.

What you are posting is what this Megathread is designed to talk about.

Listen, i actually dont follow you well, regardless, if you find the new rules good, then be happy!  But i dont like it! Eventhough it has nothing to do with me or my life! So no point trying to prove i am wrong or yoh right, doesnt matter to me. My sole intention was to share the news i found today.

 

Good luck wuth the new rule!

[jb914 33]

9 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

No, you can have one child be a USC and the family will then qualify for SNAP. I am not trying to blow smoke at all but I have seen it first hand. 

Yes, only the Citizens and qualified (5 yr) LPR's will receive SNAP, but every household member has to apply and put down their SSN/ITN and income, regardless of immigration status. You cannot apply only with the citizens' information, all household members must be included on the application.

 

The point is, this law will harm children. Unintended pregnancies happen, and of course we have one party trying to outlaw terminating the unwanted pregnancies, whilst also discouraging the poor children from receiving any assistance, as it will jeopardize their potential AOS applicant Parent's ability to earn a living in the country.

Edited September 24, 2018 by jb914

[Dave&Kal 26]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Could be worse

 

Could be like Canada.

You mean everyone could have free medical care and no government would nag at them for having what they were eligible for! Yes reallly that would be very bad!

[jb914 33]

2 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

Also useful to notice: 

 

According to the Trump administration the new rule  wouldn't be retroactive, and immigrants' green card chances won't be hurt if they remove themselves from the benefits rolls within 60 days of the rule going into effect.

 

 

No, benefits accrued before the rule change would not be automatic grounds for inadmissability as a current public charge.

 

But everything is on the table for assessing whether or not the applicant is a likely future public charge.

 

Key distinction. They will be looking at a host of issues and assigning weight. Anyone applying for Visa or AOS really ought to read through the document if they have concerns.

[Boiler 43,465]

2 minutes ago, Dave&Kal said:

You mean everyone could have free medical care and no government would nag at them for having what they were eligible for! Yes reallly that would be very bad!

So you do not know how restrictive Canada is. Thought not.

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

So you do not know how restrictive Canada is. Thought not.

You do! 🙂

 

I dont remember any cry baby government in Canada going after people asking back the gifts given away! I saw in tge news they were asking for 10,000 dollars bond as a pay back in order not to be affected!

[CarlHamilton 252]

15 hours ago, Dave&Kal said:

🙂

I saw in tge news they were asking for 10,000 dollars bond as a pay back in order not to be affected!

Fake news (if it exists at all - please link).  The proposed rule is not retroactive so no "gifts" are being repaid.  Let's not even get into your assumption that the government's role is to dole out gifts to immigrants.  This is not how the US works, and certainly not how it will work.

[Dave&Kal 26]

1 hour ago, CarlHamilton said:

Fake news (if it exists at all - please link).  The proposed rule is not retroactive so no "gifts" are being repaid.  Let's not even get into your assumption that the government's role is to dole out gifts to immigrants.  This is not how the US works, and certainly not how it will work.

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

 

[Boiler 43,465]

4 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

 

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

 

Wiki

[CarlHamilton 252]

28 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 

 

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?

Edited September 24, 2018 by CarlHamilton