Final public charge rule

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

7 hours ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

Even more rules and way more factors for the adjudicators to consider. As if the agents weren't already massively overwhelmed.

There will be not just more denials, but way more motions to reopen/reconsider and even longer delays. 

Now, the fear of being denied could also decrease the amount of applications. Or as some news outlets have anticipated, applicants will actually avoid becoming a public charge. 

At this point, one can just speculate on the real effects of this set of new rules.

They have already been using the vast majority of these rules for a long while now. So please do not worry

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

7 hours ago, jasonlzak said:

What are the chances for IR-5 visa?

Age: negative factor

Health: negative factor

English: negative factor

Ability to work: negative factor

 

The only thing can help them before is the form I-864, now I-864 is just considered a positive factor and is not enough to cancel out those negative factors.

I thought the Republican is a party of family value.

Nice way to cut legal immigration without going through Congress, all hail president Miller.

Not really but good job at fear mongering and blaming someone else there. This is just clarifying the public charge rule already on the books which many of us who have been around on here for a while think is a good thing. I can't tell you how many posts I have seen on here about people just immigrating here or their elderly parents just came here, and they are asking about what social services can they avail of. So this will help curtail all of that. 

[Ash.1101 1,755]

11 hours ago, Tatjana&Velemir said:

Finally, a comment on this thread that I can actually agree with.  We received a K1 visa because I (the sponsor) make over the 125% poverty guideline.  I'm a couple thousand dollars off of the 250% guideline which means if I applied for this later,  we  wouldn't have gotten the visa.  This is insane to me, since we are living with no issue on my below 250% salary.  It is just a way to keep more people out of this country and I am amazed to see so many supportive comments on an IMMIGRATION forum.  Immigration is already expensive and hard enough, I am totally against making it EVEN harder for people who are working their ### off for this already.

 

 

 

Youll find most people on this forum want strictr rules and frown upon anyone finding way to make things easier, such as those who come in on visitor, get married and adjust even though it’s legal to do so. A majority of the forum would prefer they do a spousal visa.

 

even after being in this forum for a while, this new process makes sense.

 

And under this new process I would have been in the same boat to bring my husband (fiancé at the time) in because my income was 0 for seven years and my credit was in the 400s. The consulate requested a second cosponsor on top of the first who made over the 125%, that second one made over 250%.

 

now my credit score is in the 700s and we make more than 250% for our household. I’m glad they took a chance on us, but I totally get, even back in 2015 they didn’t have too. When they gave my husband the 221g requesting a second cosponsor I was mad, but after that subsided, I totally understood why they feared he would be a public charge.

 

I know someone has posted an article before saying that when an immigrant moves over into the US the household becomes more financially sound (bar any layoffs or medical emergencies), and it is true, but I’ve seen so many people on this forum asking when they can seek gov assistance and how much can they get and this and that, that it’s possible the struggling minority is outweighing those who make a stable life here.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Ash.

[cd37 229]

12 hours ago, Heather&Miguel said:

This reeks of not only racism but of class-ism as well.

Oh please, this kind of comments just provoke people. These people dont complain when other countries put the same kind of rules. I call it “double standards”. 

[cyclone27 710]

If one is being honest 125% poverty level is not really live-able for 2 people and it prob should be way more. I think 250% is probably fair and that is for the benefit of the immigrant.

 

Avg salary in US is roughly 55k. 

[Ash.1101 1,755]

Just now, cyclone27 said:

If one is being honest 125% poverty level is not really live-able for 2 people and it prob should be way more. I think 250% is probably fair and that is for the benefit of the immigrant.

 

Avg salary in US is roughly 55k. 

 

In Texas for two people it’s very doable, three people can be tight but doable on 125%.

 

San Antonio in particular has a cost of living that is 14% lower than the national average. 

 

The average income of a San Antonio resident is $22,784 a year. The US average is $28,555 a year.  The Median household income of a San Antonio resident is $46,317 a year. The US average is $53,482 a year.

 

This is why a fair number of people would prefer a poverty level based on the state versus federal. Since some states make your dollar go a longer way.

 

We live very comfortably here at a little over 60k per year and don’t want for much but put us in California or New York, our income wouldn’t go as far.

[Boketto 211]

Basically I feel that this rule will mostly affect anyone whose USC sponsor isn’t making a lot of money in order to curb chain migration. To be honest, it will be very hard to evaluate the immigrant him/herself based on all those standards combined if the person is from a relatively backward country but the USC sponsor’s information is easily verifiable and substantiated. I think in reality, it will be mostly enforced more stringently against cases where the USC is making too close to 125% of poverty level income. 

[Crazy Cat 39,363]

13 hours ago, Heather&Miguel said:

This reeks of not only racism but of class-ism as well.

I have seen no mention of race in the new clarification....everyone is much too quick to play the racism card....the public charge law has been in effect for quite some time ...I see an attempt to protect the US taxpayer from risky immigrants who would be added to the roles of public welfare. 

 

Side note:  I am surprised at the number of people who don't seem to consider what it will cost to live and provide health care in the US BEFORE starting the immigration process.  Some people seem to consider it as an after thought.......

Edited August 13, 2019 by missileman

[Scandi 3,972]

So does this mean that us greencard holder should stay away from Covered California?

[Carpe Vinum 2,310]

12 hours ago, jasonlzak said:

This rule only affects on any applications which postmarked (filled) on or after its efficient date. Any pending cases will still be adjusticated based on the 1999 Interim Field Guidance, which only requires the sponsor satisfies 125% Poverty Guideline. You still have less than 60 days to file your case, unless you want to play this rule in which the Poverty Guideline can be raised up to 250%. Again, this is a move only to bar poor people from entering this country!

The income guidelines bear no reflection on the people entering the country. Only on the income level of those sponsoring them.

[RedroseMT 37]

What will be with disabled people? Older people? 

Don’t get me wrong- I don’t think that every Green card application must be approved but they should concentrate more at illegals who “ suck “ a lot of tax payers money by all the benefits they get . 

[ThomasNC1988 762]

A more logical step to me would be to completely do away with co-sponsors. Would do a lot more to make the spirit of the rule effective in my opinion.

[Crazy Cat 39,363]

4 minutes ago, ThomasNC1988 said:

A more logical step to me would be to completely do away with co-sponsors. Would do a lot more to make the spirit of the rule effective in my opinion.

What a game changer that would be!!!!!!!

[JC&BS 75]

For immigrants still in their country at what stage will this revised rule apply? (if goes into effect)

 

NOA1?

NOA2?

NVC?

Interview?

Edited August 13, 2019 by JC&BS

[Weebee 57]

1 hour ago, Boketto said:

Basically I feel that this rule will mostly affect anyone whose USC sponsor isn’t making a lot of money in order to curb chain migration. To be honest, it will be very hard to evaluate the immigrant him/herself based on all those standards combined if the person is from a relatively backward country but the USC sponsor’s information is easily verifiable and substantiated. I think in reality, it will be mostly enforced more stringently against cases where the USC is making too close to 125% of poverty level income. 

I feel exactly the opposite. They would evaluate the capabilities of the applicant and how they will fare in their new life. Right now they ask of the US citizen/ LPR to solely guarantee this and they would not take into account what the applicant brings to the table. The merits and prospects of people matter and they should be weighed in on any decision the COs make.

In my particular case, this rule will direct the spotlight to the intending immigrant (my husband). And by doing so, it will actually improve the merit of our case since my husband has better prospects than me, pay, liquid assets, he's absolutely fluent in english etc. He's gonna be a contributing member of society.. and with the old rule.. nobody would care. They would only require a sponsor.. making 125% of poverty line consistently. Stupid.