New Challenges

[Randy W]

Edit: Ongoing topic - Click here for most recent post - http://candleforlove.com/forums/topic/49687-new-challenges/?view=getlastpost

 

 

Those who have assumed all along that they were doing the right thing and on the right track may find out otherwise. From NBCNews



Now the Trump administration wants to limit citizenship for legal immigrants

The most significant change to legal immigration in decades could affect millions of would-be citizens, say lawyers and advocates.

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.

The move, which would not need congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.

Details of the rulemaking proposal are still being finalized, but based on a recent draft seen last week and described to NBC News, immigrants living legally in the U.S. who have ever used or whose household members have ever used Obamacare, children's health insurance, food stamps and other benefits could be hindered from obtaining legal status in the U.S.

. . .

Though its effects could be far-reaching, the proposal to limit citizenship to immigrants who have not used public assistance does not appear to need congressional approval. As the Clinton administration did in 1999, the Trump administration would be redefining the term "public charge," which first emerged in immigration law in the 1800s in order to shield the U.S. from burdening too many immigrants who could not contribute to society.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Randy W (see edit history)

[amberjack1234]

That's could be tough.

[tsap seui]

Ah...didn't we sign a form 861 or something that said we would be in a world of hurt that had to be paid back if we allowed our family to use any public assistance?

 

Is something new here or are they only out to crack down and enforce something that has already been in place? What were our financials all about, too? Just another joke on us?

 

Was all of what we signed and went through supposed to have been a joke, because some group wants want immigrants who have used public assistance to be given a free pass?

 

I don't get it...where is the stink in this?

[Randy W]

Ah...didn't we sign a form 861 or something that said we would be in a world of hurt that had to be paid back if we allowed our family to use any public assistance?

 

Is something new here or are they only out to crack down and enforce something that has already been in place? What were our financials all about, too? Just another joke on us?

 

Was all of what we signed and went through supposed to have been a joke, because some group wants want immigrants who have used public assistance to be given a free pass?

 

I don't get it...where is the stink in this?

 

 

The CHANGE is outlined in the quote box above - broadening the term "public charge" to include more basic public assistance programs

 

It is something to be aware of, whether you agree with it or not.

And other immigration attorneys are preparing to push back fiercely against the public charge rule.

"Any policy forcing millions of families to choose between the denial of status and food or health care would exacerbate serious problems such as hunger, unmet health needs, child poverty and homelessness, with lasting consequences for families' wellbeing and long-term success and community prosperity," said the National Immigration Law Center in a statement.

It is unclear why we would be responsible for the "status and food or health care" of immigrants, but it sounds like the details of what constitutes a "public charge", and who it will affect will be hammered out in court.

It does not affect the I-864 or visa applications, but it COULD affect green card holders and citizenship applicants, even those who have been completely law-abiding. Two cases are covered in the article.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Randy W (see edit history)

[amberjack1234]

It does even includes Obama care and there are at least two here that are on Obama care as well as their wives. They are the ones that I was concerned about other than making it harder for legal green card holders to get US Citizenship. I guess we will just have to wait it out and see what is in it. Glad the wife has been a US Citizen for a long time now. Nothing for us to worry about. She has Federal Blue Cross & Blue Shield and even major hospitals will honor that in China. I don't know about State BC/BS.

Edited August 13, 2018 by amberjack1234 (see edit history)

[Randy W]

It does even includes Obama care and there are at least two here that are on Obama care as well as their wives. They are the ones that I was concerned about other than making it harder for legal green card holders to get US Citizenship. I guess we will just have to wait it out and see what is in it. Glad the wife has been a US Citizen for a long time now. Nothing for us to worry about. She has Federal Blue Cross & Blue Shield and even major hospitals will honor that in China. I don't know about State BC/BS.

 

 

It's hard to claim that someone who has simply purchased insurance through the Obamacare is a "public charge", unless they also get the subsidy - THAT would definitely trigger a few court cases.

 

But it doesn't seem like the list is finalized.

[tsap seui]

Sorry Randy, my bad. I was not trying to agree with the plan or disagree with it.

 

I thought public assistance was just that...public assistance. It got pounded into my head here on Candle the whole 5 years that we went through legal immigration. YOUR IMMIGRANT CAN'T use any public assistance.

 

So, it looks like there WAS some form of public assistance that we may have been able to use legally, and now those forms of public assistance are getting the stink eye from the administration. What a world, eh? There is public assistance, and there is also....public assistance.

 

I admit to being laser focused on things like when they make us sign a form that covers public assistance, I thought it meant ALL types. Keep your immigrant's record free and clear of any form of public assistance, all of that sort of stuff.

 

I hope all here are okay and don't have any problems from this.

[dnoblett]

I advised a friend to not take the EITC when filing her taxes this year, she filed without claiming it and a month or so later the IRS sent her a letter insisting that she qualifies for it and they cut her a check for it. I wonder how that will fly when she applies for citizenship?

 

 

Under both versions, a much broader array of services would be considered when making a public charge determination for lawfully residing immigrants seeking a green card. For example, agents could consider health benefits (Medicaid, CHIP, and tax credits under the ACA), nutrition programs (like SNAP and WIC), housing assistance, energy assistance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Agents would also be able to consider benefits received by dependents (not just the applicant), including citizen children.

 

 

More about this can be found here: https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2018/05/02/what-is-public-charge-and-what-does-it-mean-for-immigrant-families/

[Randy W]

Here is the CURRENT USCIS definition of what constitutes a public charge - Public Charge

 

See the USCIS' Public Charge Fact Sheet for a thorough discussion of the topic.

 

I'll copy a couple of paragraphs that may soon change

 

It says SPECIFICALLY - "Public charge does not apply in naturalization proceedings."

 

Q. What publicly funded benefits may be considered for public charge purposes?

Acceptance of the following types of assistance may lead to the determination that the individual is likely to become a public charge:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of Social Security Act

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance (part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act--the successor to the AFDC program) (Note: Non cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies cannot be considered and non-recurrent cash payments for crisis situations cannot be considered for evidence of public charge)
• State and local cash assistance programs that provide benefits for income maintenance (often called "General Assistance" programs)
• Programs (including Medicaid) supporting individuals who are institutionalized for long-term care (e.g., in a nursing home or mental health institution). (Note: costs of incarceration for prison are not considered for public charge determinations)

This is not an exhaustive list of the types of cash benefits that could lead to a determination that a person is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, and thus, a public charge. Receipt of any such cash benefits not listed above will continue to be assessed under the “totality of the circumstances” analysis described above.

 

 

Q. What publicly funded benefits may not be considered for public charge purposes?

Non-cash benefits (other than institutionalization for long-term care) are generally not taken into account for purposes of a public charge determination.

Special-purpose cash assistance is also generally not taken into account for purposes of public charge determination.

Non-cash or special-purpose cash benefits are generally supplemental in nature and do not make a person primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. Therefore, past, current, or future receipt of these benefits do not impact a public charge determination. Non-cash or special purpose cash benefits that are not considered for public charge purposes include:

• Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
• Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
• Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
• Housing benefits
• Child care services
• Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
• Emergency disaster relief
• Foster care and adoption assistance
• Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education
• Job training programs
• In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)

State and local programs that are similar to the federal programs listed above are also generally not considered for public charge purposes. Please be aware that states may adopt different names for the same or similar publicly funded programs. It is the underlying nature of the program, not the name adopted in a particular state, which determines whether or not it should be considered for public charge purposes. In California, for example, Medicaid is called "Medi-Cal" and CHIP is called "Healthy Families." These benefits are not considered for public charge purposes.

In addition, and consistent with existing practice, cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans' benefits, among other forms of earned benefits, do not support a public charge determination. Unemployment compensation is also not considered for public charge purposes.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Randy W]

I advised a friend to not take the EITC when filing her taxes this year, she filed without claiming it and a month or so later the IRS sent her a letter insisting that she qualifies for it and they cut her a check for it. I wonder how that will fly when she applies for citizenship?

 

 

 

 

That may very well be one of the things that will be hashed out in court - when the IRS "corrects" your return for you like that, it is DEFINITELY something you are entitled to, and should be able, by law, to claim.

[KevinNelson]

My wife told me that the Chinese media over WeChat is running wild about this issue. She is scared stiff about ObamaCare... fact is, here in California, if any couple earns less than roughly $60,000 a year, the state kicks in a part of the medical expenses, AS REQUIRED BY OBAMACARE. Since we are now earning well above the 1.5 times above the poverty level, it makes me wonder about those news articles; NBC, and The Washington Post are some of the companies putting out fake news. The problem is this: Are these articles those fake news articles? Can anybody find other information to back it up?

 

I found the following phrase interesting in my research, which came from the "National Immigration Law Center". Please notice the extremely emotional, biased phraseology: "Trump’s reign of terror on immigrants and their families ..." The whole article is written in highly partisan terms, not with objectivity. https://www.nilc.org/issues/health-care/exec-orders-and-access-to-public-programs/

 

Another thing: The Trump administration cannot make laws. It can only enforce existing laws passed by Congress. A court appeal could halt any "policy" change *any* executive branch leader may make.

 

I hate the fact that *illegal* "immigrants" are hogging up the system, delaying things for all of us! My wife hates that as well. We are already nearly 18 months past the time we should have gotten our temporary green card changed into a permanent one. We supposedly still have to wait another four months before our I-751 application is due to be processed... Arrg!

(Note: I work teaching ESL to DACA kids. I really feel for them. But still... Uggh!)

[Randy W]

My wife told me that the Chinese media over WeChat is running wild about this issue. She is scared stiff about ObamaCare... fact is, here in California, if any couple earns less than roughly $60,000 a year, the state kicks in a part of the medical expenses, AS REQUIRED BY OBAMACARE. Since we are now earning well above the 1.5 times above the poverty level, it makes me wonder about those news articles; NBC, and The Washington Post are some of the companies putting out fake news. The problem is this: Are these articles those fake news articles? Can anybody find other information to back it up?

 

I found the following phrase interesting in my research, which came from the "National Immigration Law Center". Please notice the extremely emotional, biased phraseology: "Trump’s reign of terror on immigrants and their families ..." The whole article is written in highly partisan terms, not with objectivity. https://www.nilc.org/issues/health-care/exec-orders-and-access-to-public-programs/

 

Another thing: The Trump administration cannot make laws. It can only enforce existing laws passed by Congress. A court appeal could halt any "policy" change *any* executive branch leader may make.

 

I hate the fact that *illegal* "immigrants" are hogging up the system, delaying things for all of us! My wife hates that as well. We are already nearly 18 months past the time we should have gotten our temporary green card changed into a permanent one. We supposedly still have to wait another four months before our I-751 application is due to be processed... Arrg!

 

(Note: I work teaching ESL to DACA kids. I really feel for them. But still... Uggh!)

 

 

One of the "laws" left "un-made" by Congress - and hence left to the whims of the Executive Branch - is the exact definition of the term "public charge".

 

The article you cite is VERY objective - read it for the information it contains. It IS accurate. and there's a LOT of information in there..

 

The Trump administration’s plan to file a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The December 2017 Unified Agenda indicates that the administration plans to release an NPRM implementing changes to the public charge guidance. We recently learned that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is under pressure from the White House to draft an NPRM by early 2018. The proposed rule is likely to alter the public charge policy by allowing government officials to consider a much broader array of critical services and work supports in the public charge determination. This could include health and nutrition programs such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps). Reuters reported on a leaked draft of the proposed rule, and the draft was published by Vox on February 8, 2018. More information about the upcoming proposed rule is available in this fact sheet.

The leaked draft of an unsigned executive order. The leaked draft executive order titled “Executive Order on Protecting Taxpayer Resources by Ensuring Our Immigration Laws Promote Accountability and Responsibility,” reported by Vox on January 25, 2017, has not been finalized or signed. Instead, it appears that some of the policies described in the leaked order are being implemented administratively, in the form of revised instructions or forms, or proposed regulations.

 

 

Trump's immigrations policies have been upending families who have been left alone for decades, and are now, all of a sudden, being held accountable for laws which have always been on the books.

 

There are reasons why they're running scared. One is that Immigrations resources are easily diverted from processing of incoming immigrants to enforcing "laws" concerning illegals. For example, the controversy about "abolishing ICE".

 

Read the news - it's in a state of flux. It may be a lot of fun to label something as "fake news", but read for the facts.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Randy W]

Like Kevin's article points out, public charge considerations are unlikely to become an issue for citizenship or green card renewal without legislative changes.

 

Especially Obamacare. and other programs which are written into law. It's unlikely that a policy which deports someone for "accepting handouts" which are legal provisions would stand up to a court challenge, but, then again, you may not be real excited about being a pioneering court case, if YOUR case is hit.

 

But hitting the panic button over something you hear MAY be happening could be a BIG mistake.

 

Read the news for the FACTS - nothing is FAKE in either of the two articles. Kevin's link pretty well covers the whole picture as it presently stands - https://www.nilc.org/issues/health-care/exec-orders-and-access-to-public-programs/

 

In my view, the whole political issue of immigration got completely muddled when they first began failing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.

[Randy W]

This article speaks to the legalities of the policies being considered

 

Will Trump Admin Really Disqualify Legal Immigrants From Citizenship Because of Obamacare?

 

Is this even legal?

Yes. The government is merely changing the definition of a term in an existing rule. The Clinton administration defined “public charge” to go along with their policies, and the Trump administration would be taking similar action, even if the goals or outcomes may be different.

. . .

What about people who are already using Obamacare or other programs?

They’re probably fine for now. The draft of the proposal speaks to the use of benefits in the present, not the past. That means that people should not be denied on the basis of having participated in social programs in the past, if they’re no longer using them. People who are currently using them at the time of the rule change who are seeking admission or a change in status may want to consider stopping, but due to the above-mentioned other factors that are considered, it’s best to speak with an immigration attorney about an individual’s specific situation.

 

[Randy W]

from the NY Times today -

 

Trump Administration Aims to Sharply Restrict New Green Cards for Those on Public Aid

 

The move is not intended to affect most immigrants who have already been granted green cards, but advocates have said they fear that those with legal resident status will stop using public benefits to protect their status.

 

 

 

It's unclear that there's anything new in the NY Times article, except that the new policy has been posted on the DHS website, here

DHS Announces New Proposed Immigration Rule to Enforce Long-Standing Law that Promotes Self-Sufficiency and Protects American Taxpayers

 

 

The proposed regulation defines a public charge to be a person who receives certain public benefits above certain defined threshold amounts or for longer than certain periods of time. Importantly, by law, the public charge inadmissibility determination is a prospective determination based on the totality of the circumstances, which includes statutorily required factors such as age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education and skills.

In making this determination, DHS is proposing to consider current and past receipt of designated public benefits above certain thresholds as a heavily weighed negative factor. The rule would also make nonimmigrants who receive or are likely to receive designated public benefits above the designated threshold generally ineligible for change of status and extension of stay.

 

The public benefits proposed to be designated in this rule are federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an "emergency medical condition," and for certain disability services related to education), Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and Public Housing. The first three benefits listed above are cash benefits that are covered under current policy.