For new immigrants will asking for social benefits / resources put us at risk?

G

gm286

New Member
Hello,

Myself and my husband are recent DV Visa winners, and we will be immigrating to the U.S. this August in order to become legal Permanent Residents.

When we get there, we will be searching for employment as well as for a long-term housing rental.

Not that we absolutely need government assistance, but I figured that asking for help (if eligible) as new residents would not be such a bad idea. Before we even consider this, I wanted to weight benefits and risk.

What I mean is, I have heard from someone commenting on one of my threads that asking for government assistance as new PR residents would make us susceptible to losing our green cards. The notion and implication of a statement like that is extremely disconcerting.

Is it true, and is there any substance or legitimacy to a claim of this sort? Has this ever happened and/or is government capable of something like this?
 
Can you be more specific as to what type of government assistance you think you might be entitled to, as new immigrants?

As a DV recipient you are expected to be able to support yourselves without government assistance.

39. If I receive a visa through the DV program, will the U.S. government pay for my airfare to the United States, help me find housing and employment, and/or provide healthcare or any subsidies until I am fully settled?
No. The U.S. government will not provide any of these services to you if you receive a visa through the DV program. If you are selected to apply for a DV, before being issued a visa you must demonstrate that you will not become a public charge in the United States.
 
There is a lot of confusion and misconceptions about the "public charge" rules. The statute has two provisions, the public charge ground of inadmissibility in INA 212(a)(4) (an alien who is likely to become a public charge is inadmissible), and the public charge ground of deportability in INA 237(a)(5) (an alien who becomes a public charge within 5 years of entry not from causes that arose after entry is deportable).

In 1999 the INS published a proposed rule and a field guidance for both the public charge grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. A final rule was never published from this proposed rule, so it never took effect as regulation, but the government has been following the field guidance since then (just without the status of a regulation).

The Trump administration published a proposed rule in 2018 and a final rule in 2019 on the public charge ground of inadmissibility (but not deportability). This was implemented starting February 24, 2020. In 2021, the Biden administration declined to appeal rulings striking down the rule, so the rule was vacated, and the government stopped implementing it on March 9, 2021, and resumed implementing the 1999 field guidance.

Under the 1999 field guidance, the public charge inadmissibility only considered the past receipt of cash benefits (like SSI and TANF) and benefits for long-term institutionalized care. It did not consider non-cash benefits like Medicaid (except for long-term institutionalized care), SNAP, CHIP, etc. Under the Trump rule, the benefits considered expanded greatly, to include Medicaid, SNAP, etc., though it still excluded CHIP, WIC, educational benefits, tax credits (like Obamacare subsidy), etc. The Trump rule also had many exceptions for Medicaid, including for pregnant women, children under 21, and purely state-funded Medicaid equivalents. Besides changes to the past receipt of benefits considered, the Trump rule also controversially listed certain ages (under 18 and over 61) as negative factors, considered lack of certain education as a negative factor, and considered the immigrant having below 125% of poverty level as a negative factor.

However, under both the 1999 and Trump rules (if it were in effect), people who already have green cards are not really affected. Inadmissibility mainly only affects getting the green card; it doesn't affect your ability to remain a green card holder or to naturalize to become a US citizen (admissibility is not a factor for naturalization). Even if a green card holder leaves the US and returns, they are generally not considered applicants for admission (and thus not subject to grounds of inadmissibility) if they have been away for less than 180 days.

People often make a big deal out of the receipt of benefits considered under the public charge rule (especially the Trump rule), but that is mostly exaggerated. Green card holders (and even more so for people without green cards) are eligible for few if any of the benefits considered anyway. Federal Medicaid is not available for green card holders in the first 5 years. A few states provide Medicaid for pregnant women, children, and green card holders in the first 5 years, but they do so with only state funds, and so this would not have been considered under the Trump rule anyway. Anyway, the Trump rule is gone, so this is moot. The 1999 field guidance considers much less.

The Trump administration never published a rule on the public charge ground of deportability, so the 1999 field guidance applies for that. Under that guidance, it is very difficult to be deported for public charge. Basically, you have to have been the beneficiary of an I-864 enforceable affidavit of support, the state must have sought reimbursement from the I-864 sponsor, including taking legal action, and the sponsor must have failed to pay. But DV immigrants do not use I-864s, so arguably this ground of deportability cannot apply to them no matter what.

Besides the effect on the immigrant, there is the separate issue of effect on an I-864 sponsor. Even if receipt of a benefit is not considered for public charge purposes, the I-864 sponsor can still be liable for reimbursement, as the definition of need-base benefit for I-864 is broader than for public charge. But again, this is not applicable for DV immigrants, who do not have I-864s. I-134s do not create any legally binding obligations or liabilities.

The government has put up a webpage to clear up misconceptions on the current public charge rules.
 
Well the big thing is Medicaid. California and New York allow Medicaid (or something with the same name as Medicaid in their state) for green card holders in the first 5 years. Many states provide Medicaid to pregnant women regardless of immigration status. California provides Medicaid to children under 26 and seniors over 50 regardless of immigration status also. These things would probably not be considered even under the Trump rule, but people aren't familiar with the details of the rules, and the main thing they hear is don't get any type of benefits.

There is data showing people disenrolling from other benefits like WIC, which were not considered under any of the rules. I even see people asking questions about whether they can get unemployment benefits, which is obviously not a need-based benefit. There is data showing people disenrolling their US citizen children from benefits, because they (incorrectly) thought that that might affect them. So most of the problem is the chilling effect and fear from people hearing vague generalizations of the rules but not knowing what exactly the rules are, rather than the restrictions from the rules themselves. There were some genuine concerns about the Trump rules, but it was mainly about how it looked at age, education, immigrant's finances, etc., in the process to get a green card, rather than the actual benefits considered. And as I said above, green card holders were never much affected after they get their green card, under any version of the rules.
 
newacct said:
Well the big thing is Medicaid. California and New York allow Medicaid (or something with the same name as Medicaid in their state) for green card holders in the first 5 years. Many states provide Medicaid to pregnant women regardless of immigration status. California provides Medicaid to children under 26 and seniors over 50 regardless of immigration status also. These things would probably not be considered even under the Trump rule, but people aren't familiar with the details of the rules, and the main thing they hear is don't get any type of benefits.

There is data showing people disenrolling from other benefits like WIC, which were not considered under any of the rules. I even see people asking questions about whether they can get unemployment benefits, which is obviously not a need-based benefit. There is data showing people disenrolling their US citizen children from benefits, because they (incorrectly) thought that that might affect them. So most of the problem is the chilling effect and fear from people hearing vague generalizations of the rules but not knowing what exactly the rules are, rather than the restrictions from the rules themselves. There were some genuine concerns about the Trump rules, but it was mainly about how it looked at age, education, immigrant's finances, etc., in the process to get a green card, rather than the actual benefits considered. And as I said above, green card holders were never much affected after they get their green card, under any version of the rules.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that wasn’t clear to me if that was what OP was thinking of. I know of some other DV immigrants coming from places like some European countries with large social safety/welfare nets, expecting a lot more than just free healthcare to be available when they arrive.

Agree with you on the rest of it. See a number of people asking about public charge issues for N400, where of course it isny a consideration at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top