This public charge rules has my parents in a panic - Page 2

TexasDreamy · 01-29-2020, 08:33 PM

duplicate post

dude33 · 01-29-2020, 11:28 PM

Thanks I feel much better

IamAman · 02-01-2020, 09:13 PM

public charge is pretty terrible though. I posted about it when it was first announced. Unless you're young, educated, and independently wealthy - ie. a young lad from England coming here, the applicant will be forced to put up a very expensive bond.

For an undocumented or even an international student type person who's not allowed to work, it's hard to show income so it becomes a chicken or the egg type of situation too.

Gocchin Sama · 02-03-2020, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasDreamy

I've never heard of the government seizing legal property of illegal immigrants - if you own it, you own it. The public charge rules aren't nearly as bad as most people think.

Here's a breakdown from the USCIS website:

Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs.
In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

Basically - don't apply for emergency funding.

There's also a huge list of things that don't count as public charge stuff:

Foodstamps
WIC
CHIP
Medicaid
Child care
Housing benefits (ie: section
Disaster relief
Unemployment
Earned social security benefits

Your people will be ok dude, don't panic. The public charge rule is dumb because most immigrants don't even qualify for the programs they mention (SSI, Medicaid) only very few (state funded nursing homes, TANF) are even available to people without status.

My advice for them:

Stay put. They have a house. They probably have a steady job. Don't move, especially don't move to the deep south.
Wait until the sister turns 21 and can file for them.

That article you linked contains part of the old language from 2011. THe new expanded definition of Public Charge does include the 12/36 month rule applicable to most forms of Medicaid.

https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-rele...issibility-law

Quote:

DHS has revised the definition of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of more kinds of public benefits received, which the Department believes will better ensure that applicants subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient. The rule defines the term “public charge” to mean an individual who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). The rule further defines the term “public benefit” to include any cash benefits for income maintenance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), most forms of Medicaid, and certain housing programs.

Gocchin Sama · 04:41 PM

The official language is out:

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...charge-grounds

My parents who've waited 12 years with an approved I-130 under my aunt are fucked.

Quote:

Since 1999, the prevailing approach to public charge inadmissibility has been dictated primarily by the May 26, 1999, Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds (1999 Interim Field Guidance), issued by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).[8] Under Start Printed Page 41295 that approach, “public charge” has been interpreted to mean a person who is “primarily dependent on the Government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense.” [9] As a consequence, an alien's reliance on or receipt of non-cash benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps; Medicaid; and housing vouchers and other housing subsidies are not currently considered by DHS in determining whether an alien is deemed likely at any time to become a public charge.

DHS is revising its interpretation of “public charge” to incorporate consideration of such benefits, and to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations.[10] This rule redefines the term “public charge” to mean an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months). This rule defines the term “public benefit” to include cash benefits for income maintenance, SNAP, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and certain other forms of subsidized housing. DHS has tailored the rule to limit its effects in certain ways, such as for active duty military members and their families, and children in certain contexts.

IamAman · 02-11-2020, 12:44 AM

The good news is that whatever this president has done can be undone by the next president. So much is riding in the upcoming election for all of us.

Gocchin Sama · 01:49 AM

Can it be undone though? If a democratic president changes the Public Charge definition back to the way it was, would it be upheld by SCOTUS in the face of a potential lawsuit from a red state?

I think that depends on whether the SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor on the grounds that the president has the power to redefine grounds of inadmissibility as he/she fit, or they agreed that the new stringent definition of the Public Charge is better for the nation's interest. Can anyone find the official language of the ruling?

fl_dreamer · 05:16 AM

Honestly, too many undocumented people are abusing the system. Something had to be done. It stated 12 months in a 3 year period...loophole might be there! Perhaps it’s 3 years before applying for residency?

Either way- this will give people pause before popping USC kids like
It’s candy and collecting all sorts of benefits.

IamAman · 02-15-2020, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fl_dreamer

Honestly, too many undocumented people are abusing the system. Something had to be done. It stated 12 months in a 3 year period...loophole might be there! Perhaps it’s 3 years before applying for residency?

Either way- this will give people pause before popping USC kids like
It’s candy and collecting all sorts of benefits.

Sorry but you're buying into the right wing propaganda here. This will mostly affect those who already have a pathway to residency, not the ones popping out kids. Those kids are still eligible for benefits and the parents are still free to apply for them because the kids are USC. Of course, some parents might not apply in fear that their name will be there but then the kid loses, not the parent.

Before you cheer too loud and say "they deserve it for taking public assistance", read the fine print and realize that it's not just for people who have taken public assistance, but now the burden is on the applicants to PROVE that they won't be likely to take public assistance. It will discriminate against older people like parents of USC. Even if you get married to a USC, you will have to prove that you're not going to be a burden and will have to put up a bond if they say you're not educated or wealthy enough.

IamAman · 02-15-2020, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gocchin Sama

Can it be undone though? If a democratic president changes the Public Charge definition back to the way it was, would it be upheld by SCOTUS in the face of a potential lawsuit from a red state?

I think that depends on whether the SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor on the grounds that the president has the power to redefine grounds of inadmissibility as he/she fit, or they agreed that the new stringent definition of the Public Charge is better for the nation's interest. Can anyone find the official language of the ruling?

Yes it can be undone but the current administration has changed so many rules that I would hope someone on the Democrat side is keeping track of what to undo.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

March

This public charge rules has my parents in a panic - Page 2