Income test under Trump proposal places tougher hurdles for families to get green cards

[EandH0904 1,184]

What do we think of this? 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/income-test-under-trump-proposal-places-tougher-hurdles-families-get-n917931?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

[GreatDane 366]

I wouldn't worry about it - it's a proposal that has to be passed. It's far from it at this point and I expect it to remain the same. 

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

he has many plans 

some are so far fetched u gotta wonder where his head is

but you also can't believe all news articles

one announcement a few months ago scared everyone but it was a rule passed in 2009 and was nothing new

Trump has said in the past he wanted higher quality educated immigrants but he himself staffs his hotels and other businesses by getting work visas for immigrants and paying them low wages

[Notapplicable 1]

Even the national us median income for single does not reach that number ,according to the  2017 census !! 

[pushbrk 12,114]

22 minutes ago, EandH0904 said:

What do we think of this? 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/income-test-under-trump-proposal-places-tougher-hurdles-families-get-n917931?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

I....  think your topic title is an exaggeration/inaccurate.  250% is not the proposed "guideline".  It stays at 125% and the rest has always been a judgment call.

 

The proposal sets a minimum income of 125 percent of poverty — $20,575 for a household of two and $31,375 for four — for consideration of whether they could become dependent on public benefits, but the rule considers household earnings of at least 250 percent of poverty to be a "heavily weighted positive factor."

“It’s not a bright line. If you have an income of above 250 percent of poverty level you are not assured there won’t be a denial, but you are in much better shape,” said Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute think tank.

[EandH0904 1,184]

2 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

I....  think your topic title is an exaggeration/inaccurate.  

You're right. My bad. I certainly did not mean to misrepresent but I'm not sure I can change it (?). 

 

And I read the article and I understand it but the implications are concerning to me. For example, some countries scrutinize heavily if a co sponsor is needed....asking how you can afford to travel if you need a co sponsor.  (My husband country is like this)

 

A co sponsor shouldn't be allowed if it's going to count against you. My concern is this will follow the same path. Even if you meet the 125% I'm worried it could no longer be seen as "enough" to some consulates. 

[pushbrk 12,114]

3 minutes ago, EandH0904 said:

You're right. My bad. I certainly did not mean to misrepresent but I'm not sure I can change it (?). 

 

And I read the article and I understand it but the implications are concerning to me. For example, some countries scrutinize heavily if a co sponsor is needed....asking how you can afford to travel if you need a co sponsor.  (My husband country is like this)

 

A co sponsor shouldn't be allowed if it's going to count against you. My concern is this will follow the same path. Even if you meet the 125% I'm worried it could no longer be seen as "enough" to some consulates. 

You are not describing a "change" of policy.  Low income petitioners bringing younger male spouses from Morocco is not just a public charge concern.  It's an even bigger indicator of possible marriage/immigration fraud.  Often the answer to "How can you afford to travel if you need a joint sponsor?" is because the foreign spouse is the one footing the bill PRIMARILY in order to get an immigration benefit.

 

That's why visa issue is ALWAYS a judgment call on the whole case, not just the public charge issue.  Get familiar with the concept of "Totality of Circumstances".

[Ryan H 3,790]

~~Moved from IR-1/CR-1 Process & Procedures to Immigration News and Discussion.  Topic title edited to match actual headline of story.~~

[janet3 1,170]

1 hour ago, pushbrk said:

I....  think your topic title is an exaggeration/inaccurate.  250% is not the proposed "guideline".  It stays at 125% and the rest has always been a judgment call.

It is absolutely not a misnomer....

The article clearly states that the current administration would like to move the “guideline” above the 125%. Making the bar 250% would mean only the upper middle class or rich could assist their family (or loved ones....aka....fiance) could come here. 

 

[pushbrk 12,114]

3 hours ago, janet3 said:

It is absolutely not a misnomer....

The article clearly states that the current administration would like to move the “guideline” above the 125%. Making the bar 250% would mean only the upper middle class or rich could assist their family (or loved ones....aka....fiance) could come here. 

 

Moving the guideline above 125% and doubling it to 250% are NOT the same thing.  I've been around this stuff 13 years, long before Obama or Trump and depending on the rest of the circumstances, people felt uncomfortable about getting through the process with less than double the minimum income.  Sure lots of folks got through by barely meeting the minimum, but the minimum is certainly not enough to avoid poverty in some areas.  Small towns, maybe.  Major cities, not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of raising the 125% guideline.  I'm just saying that doubling it is not actually being proposed.

[Ben&Zian 4,397]

 Nope, not getting into it.

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

12 hours ago, pushbrk said:

You are not describing a "change" of policy.  Low income petitioners bringing younger male spouses from Morocco is not just a public charge concern.  It's an even bigger indicator of possible marriage/immigration fraud.  Often the answer to "How can you afford to travel if you need a joint sponsor?" is because the foreign spouse is the one footing the bill PRIMARILY in order to get an immigration benefit.

 

That's why visa issue is ALWAYS a judgment call on the whole case, not just the public charge issue.  Get familiar with the concept of "Totality of Circumstances".

I, myself, am against the cosponsor 

you need to be able to functin totally as a family unit with your spouse

depending on others for financial support or living space also causes stress in the relationship

when getting into this process the USC should know all that is involved (travel expenses, fees, cultures, family values / just everything)

if you can't afford it, don't do it

[Ben&Zian 4,397]

20 minutes ago, adil-rafa said:

I, myself, am against the cosponsor 

you need to be able to functin totally as a family unit with your spouse

depending on others for financial support or living space also causes stress in the relationship

when getting into this process the USC should know all that is involved (travel expenses, fees, cultures, family values / just everything)

if you can't afford it, don't do it

 

I myself fully agree here. One, people go into this whole ordeal and half of them have no clue what to expect, just assume file some paperwork and poof, magic happens.

Same with the financial part, everyone's situation is different, understood; but if you can barely support yourself how can you then support someone else?

I don't like the whole co-sponsor deal personally either, and I'm sure some people will rant about us not liking it either. 

Because you're right on costs, it isn't just about the filing fees, medical, interview, plane tickets, ect... what about when they get here? New furniture maybe? Down payment on a car? Just extra food and date nights? All of those add up very 

quickly and a lot of people don't even consider that before hand. I took a 5k loan out of my 401k knowing we would need extra on top of it all; but that's planning and realizing a head of time just the minimum won't cut it.

So no offense to anyone; but the whole co-sponsor thing doesn't work for me either.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Ben&Zian

[K & R 343]

14 minutes ago, adil-rafa said:

I, myself, am against the cosponsor 

you need to be able to functin totally as a family unit with your spouse

depending on others for financial support or living space also causes stress in the relationship

when getting into this process the USC should know all that is involved (travel expenses, fees, cultures, family values / just everything)

if you can't afford it, don't do it

That's easy for someone to say when they can afford it. I can afford having my husband here (pay all of my bills, we live on our own in a nice place, etc) but we still needed a joint sponsor because i am back in school full time and can only work part time at the moment I just barely don't make the threshold. When we applied for his visa we were aware of all that was involved and that is why we have used my dad as a cosponsor. As long as the money is coming from somewhere (and that somewhere not being the US government) I don't understand why you see a problem with it. This has caused absolutely no stress in our relationship because all three of us (husband, myself, and my father) are on board and supportive of each other. My husband and I spent months saving as much as we could before/during our visa application process. If people can find a way to afford it by getting some help for a bit from family or a friend they shouldn't just not be with their loved one. A little harsh don't you think?

[Ben&Zian 4,397]

Both of us are going back to school this month with online schooling and be working full time.... it's do able if you manage your time correctly. Just saying.