Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And per ICE there are a lot of exclusions. And this is what needs changed. An immigrant could get subsidized housing, subsidized health care, subsidized utility bills, subsidized food, subsidized childcare, subsidized education, subsidized job training, and more and still be deemed to not be a "public charge".
It might be quicker to simply list the forms of assistance that are considered to be public charge.
Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration
Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits 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, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as 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)
Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans' benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
Unemployment compensation
So much will depend on the final form of the rule making. To take your example as a worst-case scenario, I might agree with you - no citizenship for that particular legal immigrant IF at the time of application he/she was still that dependent. They would still be legal and in the US taking care of their citizen children who would be receiving the benefits. BUT as non-citizens they would not be able (under chain migration) to start sponsoring their relatives. So good, that. But then ... if they were that dependent they wouldn't be able to prepare the affidavits of support and so perhaps that wouldn't be an issue???
OTOH, the way one publication (NBC News ?) reported it the rule making would mandate that if a legal immigrant ever used one of a long list of programs at any time they would not be eligible. This even if at the time of application they now were earning good wages and were completely non-subsidized.
With the road to citizenship so long ... with the low wage jobs often held by immigrants (like nursing home assistants) a plus to the community ... with the benefits (child welfare) conferring a long-term positive net impact ... I'd be leery of placing legal immigrants in that position - of having to choose between a benefit and future citizenship. That's not cost effective in the end - for anyone.
It's fine to be conservative on immigration - believing that the processes for that initial "selection" should be tightened up - for example get rid of chain migration. Absolutely. I'm with you there. Citizenship should be a "privilege" (selection) and not a "right" (chain migration). It's possible to take some communal responsibility for situations involving human rights without turning to US residence.
But once an immigrant is selected for legal residence then they are IN - literally as well as figuratively! - treated the same as a US citizen (except, of course, subject to deportation for criminal activity with no citizenship awarded if they become a "public charge" per the current definition of needing income maintenance and/or longterm care).
So much will depend on the final form of the rule making. To take your example as a worst-case scenario, I might agree with you - no citizenship for that particular legal immigrant IF at the time of application he/she was still that dependent. They would still be legal and in the US taking care of their citizen children who would be receiving the benefits. BUT as non-citizens they would not be able (under chain migration) to start sponsoring their relatives. So good, that. But then ... if they were that dependent they wouldn't be able to prepare the affidavits of support and so perhaps that wouldn't be an issue???
If the affidavits of support were worth the paper they were written on then they wouldn't be so dependent in the first place.
As usual, one side will hail it as salvation and the other side will portray it as the end of the world. Not to mention what the courts will say. The goal for me is to tighten things up and reduce the welfare magnetism.
Wow! Nice! I hope it passes....we will get to see who every politician stands WITH Americans or WITH immigrants who are living off of Americans hard earned dollars.
What a way to talk ca ca,
most americans PARENTS ARE IMMIGRANTS,,CHECK IT OUT
If the affidavits of support were worth the paper they were written on then they wouldn't be so dependent in the first place.
As usual, one side will hail it as salvation and the other side will portray it as the end of the world. Not to mention what the courts will say. The goal for me is to tighten things up and reduce the welfare magnetism.
Presumably because you, like Trump, think that if you find a way to exclude all the yucky third world immigrants and refugees that all of a sudden well educated people from western european nations will be begging to emigrate to the US so that they can spend half their salary on healthcare, get a job with no benefits and no vacation and pay a fortune for childcare. I sure hope you don't hold your breath...
Presumably because you, like Trump, think that if you find a way to exclude all the yucky third world immigrants and refugees that all of a sudden well educated people from western european nations will be begging to emigrate to the US so that they can spend half their salary on healthcare, get a job with no benefits and no vacation and pay a fortune for childcare. I sure hope you don't hold your breath...
I'm not holding my breath because I'm more than fine if the EU people want to stay in EU and give half their salary to the government to make the purchasing decisions for those things on their behalf.
Money is needed for the Wall mr trump will find it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
