Proposed Rule - 83 fr 51114

[Cat Herder]

I received an email asking me to submit a comment in opposition to this because I am a child care provider. "Join us in denouncing this mean-spirited proposed rule" Thoughts? :confused:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-21106/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=835f21e7-4ff8-4fa3-83dc-572a7fb024dc

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to prescribe how it determines whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge. Aliens who seek adjustment of status or a visa, or who are applicants for admission, must establish that they are not likely at any time to become a public charge, unless Congress has expressly exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Moreover, DHS proposes to require all aliens seeking an extension of stay or change of status to demonstrate that they have not received, are not currently receiving, nor are likely to receive, public benefits as defined in the proposed rule.

DHS proposes to define “public charge” as the term is used in sections 212(a)(4) of the Act. DHS also proposes to define the types of public benefits that are considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations. DHS would consider an alien's receipt of public benefits when such receipt is above the applicable threshold(s) proposed by DHS, either in terms of dollar value or duration of receipt. DHS proposes to clarify that it will make public charge inadmissibility determinations based on consideration of the factors set forth in section 212(a)(4) and in the totality of an alien's circumstances. DHS also proposes to clarify when an alien seeking adjustment of status, who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, may be granted adjustment of status in the discretion of DHS upon the giving of a public charge bond. DHS is also proposing revisions to existing USCIS information collections and new information collection instruments to accompany the proposed regulatory changes. With the publication of this proposed rule, DHS withdraws the proposed regulation on public charge that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) published on May 26, 1999.

[Blackcat31]

What the what? :confused:

....and what does being a child care provider have to do with any of that? Unless they're just counting on you having a bigger penchant for empathy than logic.


I am thoroughly confused.

[Cat Herder]

*I assume it is because *they assume I accept subsidy, therefore it would affect my paycheck = I would automatically agree?

I have been wrong before, though.:confused:

I am confused a bit by this, too.

[Cat Herder]

Oh, and also by the lingering question of where they got the email list for child care providers. No, I have no doubt where they got it, not really cough QRIS cough.

[Cat Herder]

I am still reading and trying to absorb it all.

I left this out above: Executive Summary

DHS seeks 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.2 DHS proposes to define the term "public charge" in regulation and to identify the types, amount, and duration of receipt of public benefits that would be considered in public charge inadmissibility determinations. DHS proposes to amend its regulations to interpret the minimum statutory factors for determining whether an alien is inadmissible because he or she is likely to become a public charge. This proposed rule would provide a standard for determining whether an alien who seeks admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant or as an immigrant, or seeks adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4). DHS also provides a more comprehensive framework under which USCIS will consider public charge inadmissibility. DHS proposes that certain paper-based applications to USCIS would require additional evidence related to public charge considerations. Due to operational limitations, this additional evidence would not generally be required at ports of entry.

[Cat Herder]

Why was my title changed?

[Blackcat31]

Why was my title changed?

I dunno, ...wasn't me.

[Cat Herder]

Ok. Thanks, BC.

Whoever did edit my post, I respectfully request that you either return it to its original title, delete it altogether or remove "mean-spirited".

I never said I believed it to be mean-spirited and I don't like it being implied that I did. I hoped for a thoughtful discussion to better understand the implications. From both sides of the topic. I am undecided. TIA

[Cat Herder]

Whoever did edit my post, I respectfully request that you either return it to its original title, delete it altogether or remove "mean-spirited".

I never said I believed it to be mean-spirited and I don't like it being implied that I did. I hoped for a thoughtful discussion to better understand the implications. From both sides of the topic. I am undecided. TIA

I am still waiting.

[nannyde]

I am still waiting.

I didn't change it.

[Cat Herder]

I didn't change it.

Thank you, Nan. :hug:

Who are the moderators, now?

[nannyde]

Thank you, Nan. :hug:

Who are the moderators, now?

Michael, black and me are the only ones I know of.

[Cat Herder]

Michael, black and me are the only ones I know of.

Ok, thanks, again. I have been here a long time , never had an issue before.

[Michael]

Why was my title changed?

That would have been me.

I deal with the titles on this forum for search reasons. 83 fr 51114 has no relevance to anything as a title. I chose from your comment a better title. It was nothing personal.

When people search for "DHS seeks to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge", the google search results matter in getting new traffic to this forum. Which would you click on?

Mean-Spirited Proposed Rule - 83 fr 51114

83 fr 51114

Proposed Rule - 83 fr 51114

[Cat Herder]

I get it. No worries.

I was not writing a political ad or search title. I wanted to discuss this email with co-workers who also received it from their food program sponsors. I very much prefer the last title "Proposed Rule" as it does not insinuate a one-sided judgement of a topic to be discussed.

Thanks for the explanation, though. I really appreciate it.