Courts block Trump rule to deny green cards and visas to low-income immigrants(merged)

[Dashinka 23,242]

It sounds like a couple of courts have blocked this rule change nationwide.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/11/769376154/n-y-judge-blocks-trump-administrations-public-charge-rule

[ale07 51]

It might get blocked as others have mentioned, but just so you know my husband was able to add me to his insurance without a SSN. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by ale07

[Keem12 9]

The administrative process or whatever it's call, im not sure if it's open more to sign up for health insurance for this time because I was ask earlier but I didn't take it out earlier this year. 

[Dustin725 72]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It sounds like a couple of courts have blocked this rule change nationwide.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/11/769376154/n-y-judge-blocks-trump-administrations-public-charge-rule

Believe this is talking about public charge rule taking effect October 15th. If that has received an injunction than I am sure the health care coverage proclamation will get blocked as well, sounds to me like most of these changes are political and don’t hold any actual weight. 

[Just Paul 4,591]

1 minute ago, Dustin725 said:

Believe this is talking about public charge rule taking effect October 15th.

It is the USCIS implementation of public charge.  The State Department sill enforces public charge at the consulate.   In essence this will effect public charge at AOS.

[Keem12 9]

5 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

It is the USCIS implementation of public charge.  The State Department sill enforces public charge at the consulate.   In essence this will effect public charge at AOS.

So basically it will still be enforce then?

[Just Paul 4,591]

Just now, Keem12 said:

So basically it will still be enforce then?

It does not stop the consulate from denying a visa over public charge concerns.

[Dustin725 72]

2 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

It does not stop the consulate from denying a visa over public charge concerns.

Hasn’t the consulate always done that? I’m speaking about the actual changes to public charge. Seems USCIS has removed all forms relating to the changes that we’re suppose to come into effect. Don’t think their allowed to put the new changes until the lawsuits have cleared.

[vincentlina 74]

2 hours ago, Paul & Mary said:

It does not stop the consulate from denying a visa over public charge concerns.

I don't think this is the case. This rule has been blocked by several states (today) as others have said. Since it will not go into effect, then how can consulates enforce a rule that is not law?

[Crazy Cat 39,222]

5 minutes ago, vincentlina said:

I don't think this is the case. This rule has been blocked by several states (today) as others have said. Since it will not go into effect, then how can consulates enforce a rule that is not law?

@Paul & Mary is correct.  This judge's ruling does not affect Consulates...The ruling concerns USCIS only.....Consulates have and will continue to make public charge determinations.....

[Dustin725 72]

19 minutes ago, missileman said:

@Paul & Mary is correct.  This judge's ruling does not affect Consulates...The ruling concerns USCIS only.....Consulates have and will continue to make public charge determinations.....

Yes, This is from the USCIS website;
 

ALERT: On Oct. 11, 2019, judges in three separate cases before U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Northern District of California, and Eastern District of Washington enjoined DHS from implementing and enforcing the final rulerelated to the public charge ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and postponed the effective date of the final rule until there is final resolution in the cases. Two of the injunctions are nationwide and prevent USCIS from implementing the rule anywhere in the United States. Until final decisions in these cases are issued or the injunction is lifted, USCIS will accept the version of this form on this landing page.

 

However on the Department of State website they published an announcement about the changes still going into effect on the 15th. 
 

My question: How will the consulate enforce these new changes when the new forms to be used are no longer available? 
 

How will they get information directing to the various changes they’ve made?

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Dustin725

[Boketto 211]

50 minutes ago, Dustin725 said:

Yes, This is from the USCIS website;
 

ALERT: On Oct. 11, 2019, judges in three separate cases before U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Northern District of California, and Eastern District of Washington enjoined DHS from implementing and enforcing the final rulerelated to the public charge ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and postponed the effective date of the final rule until there is final resolution in the cases. Two of the injunctions are nationwide and prevent USCIS from implementing the rule anywhere in the United States. Until final decisions in these cases are issued or the injunction is lifted, USCIS will accept the version of this form on this landing page.

 

However on the Department of State website they published an announcement about the changes still going into effect on the 15th. 
 

My question: How will the consulate enforce these new changes when the new forms to be used are no longer available? 
 

How will they get information directing to the various changes they’ve made?

 

I think they just won’t be able to get the information since they’ve removed the forms... if there is no way to offer the information then they can’t use it to adjudicate. 

 

Someone said earlier that the changes are more political than practical in nature. I am inclined to agree. It’s more of a show of strength between the two polarized political stances in the country right now, and immigrants are a medium to present it. So many aspects of this rule are contradictory and not bulletproof from legal ramifications, that I wouldn’t be surprised if it was designed more to superficially appease a specific voter base rather than be strictly enforced.

Edited October 12, 2019 by Boketto

[Dustin725 72]

2 minutes ago, Boketto said:

I think they just won’t be able to get the information since they’ve removed the forms... if there is no way to offer the information then they can’t use it to adjudicate. 

 

Someone said earlier that the changes are more political than practical in nature. I am inclined to agree. It’s more of a show of strength between the two polarized political stances in the country right now, and immigrants are a medium to present it. So many aspects of this rule are contradictory and not bulletproof from legal ramifications, that I wouldn’t be surprised if it was designed more to superficially appease a specific voter base rather than be strictly enforced.

Yeah I was thinking that, needed to confirm so I know I wasn't crazy for seeing some contradictions here. Thanks for the input! Really feel like we're being pulled around in all directions here. Sheesh! 

[ultrasoul 51]

There’s a lot of confusion on this thread. Here are what are facts:

 

1) USCIS and Department of State are two separate agencies. USCIS has jurisdiction of adjustment of status while Department of State has jurisdiction of consular processing. They thus can implement different rules concerning the public charge.

 

2) The 2 recent national wide injunctions only affects the USCIS not being able to implement the DHS public charge. So yes for now while the injunction stands, there is no need to file the new I-944 with I-485 adjustment of status packages. And yes, USCIS officers cannot deny a green card adjustment of status based on public charge concerns. 

 

3) As @Paul & Mary indicated, the injunctions DO NOT impact consular processing, meaning those who are planning to do consular processing better make sure they and their US petitioners have not been using public resources. The Department of state already revised the FAM manual back in January without any public announcement to give consular officers latitude in denying immigrant visas based on health, education, and public health concerns.  

 

This Reuters article in April states that 135,000 immigrant visa denials are due to the newfound latitude consular officers have from when the new rule went into effect at consulates in January to April- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-insight/denials-of-us-immigrant-visas-skyrocket-after-little-heralded-rule-change-idUSKCN1RR0UX

 

4) The department of https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/11/20899253/trump-public-charge-immigrants-welfare-benefits-court will revise their FAM 

 

4)  

Edited October 12, 2019 by ultrasoul
L

[ultrasoul 51]

4) The department of state released a statement on Oct 11 the same day the 2 USCIS injunctions were given that they (DOS) will still continue the public charge implementation as planned for Oct 15- https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/ea/Information-on-Public-Charge.html

 

5) What’s ironic is that the 2 USCIS injunctions have a small impact as they only impact Adjustment of Status adjudication whereas most immigrant visas are adjudicated via consular processing (13 million) - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/11/20899253/trump-public-charge-immigrants-welfare-benefits-court

Edited October 12, 2019 by ultrasoul