Join The Discussion

Opinions

Express your opinion on proposed items for lawsuit.
See also why Citizenship is important.

Green card holders in this country receive most of the rights of US citizens and in the day-to-day life of permanent residents there are not too many differences than with their citizen counterparts. For example, green card holders can typically live in the US as long as they like and then can work for almost every kind of employer. So why bother with getting citizenship? Well, there are a number of good reasons to consider getting naturalized.

Here are ten reasons that stand out:


Patriotism and Voting - If you are making American your permanent home and want to fully participate in the American democracy, becoming a citizen is vital. With rare exceptions, only citizens in this country can vote. And voting is the most basic way to effect change in the way the country is run.

Retaining residency- The only way to guarantee you will forever have the right to remain in the US is to naturalize. Permanent residents are always at risk of losing their green cards if they spend long periods of time outside the US. Since 9/11, this has become a more serious problem and more and more people are losing their residency status because they are deemed by port of entry officers as having abandoned their permanent residency in the US.

Deportation - If one is ever convicted of a crime - and not necessarily a very serious crime - there is a risk of being deported. Once you become a citizen, with rare exceptions, you retain your citizenship even if you run into criminal problems.

Government benefits - Generally speaking, permanent residents have access to the same public benefits as citizens. However, in recent years, there has been more and more talk of making certain kinds of public benefits only available to citizens. The only way to ensure that this will not ever be a problem is to naturalize.

Immigration for family members - US citizens receive priority treatment when it comes to bringing in family members. Citizens over 21 years of age can sponsor family members without waiting on a queue for a visa to become available. The same is true for spouses of US citizens and minor children of US citizens. US citizens can also sponsor adult children and siblings, though the waits in these categories can be a few to several years. Green card holders, on the other hand, cannot sponsor parents or siblings. And the wait to bring in children and spouses are much longer than for citizens.

Federal jobs - Certain types of jobs with government agencies require US citizenship. This is particularly true for jobs in the energy and defense sectors.

Running for office - Many types of elected positions in this country require the officeholder to be a US citizen.

Tax consequences - US citizens and permanent residents are not always treated the same for tax purposes. This is particularly true for estate taxes.

Federal grants- While many federal grants are available to permanent residents, more and more are only available to US citizen applicants.

Political contributions - While green card holders can legally donate money to campaigns if they are residing in the US, it is not clear that green card holders residing abroad - even temporarily - can do so. This point was the subject of a political scandal involving donations by wealthy Indonesians to the Clinton presidential campaign.
 
Treating guests like criminals.

It is worth reading it and then comparing ourselves to the same treatment with Fps and Security Checks.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.rights10feb11,0,3428685.story?coll=bal-pe-opinion

Treating guests like criminals

By Tibor Glant

February 11, 2004

DEBRECEN, Hungary - People who risked a lot to regain and secure their political, human and civil rights tend to be more sensitive to possibly losing them again than people who were born with these rights.

As of Jan. 5, the United States began fingerprinting, photographing and color-coding people entering the country if they require a visa.

I have a beard, I speak English with a funny accent and I need a visa to enter the United States. But I am not and never have been a terrorist. The U.S. government cannot prove my guilt, and I have no chance to prove my innocence. I don't even get the benefit of the doubt.

As Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, a document of freedom I went to see in the National Archives in 1989, when my native Hungary still lived under Soviet occupation, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." But U.S. citizens and people not traveling on a visa in the United States apparently have been created more equal.

I understand that the United States is at war with terrorism. I have long been afraid of terrorism. I worked for months to set up a public exhibit of Joel Meyerowitz's World Trade Center photos in the foyer of my university library, where several hundred people pass daily. This is not my job. I did it out of conviction and sympathy. I also understand that Americans tend to curtail constitutional and civil rights in times of war. But what has been going on in the United States since 9/11 is something different.

When the Cold War ended, many historians thought the events of 1989 and 1990 turned the 20th century into a detour: Liberal democracy defeated both of its totalitarian challengers -
communism and Nazism/fascism - so it must be the best, most democratic form of government. Fifteen years later, I witness the scariest thing I can possibly imagine: The leading democratic country in the world - "the shining city upon a hill" - is reproducing the rhetoric, the methods and the institutions of its defeated totalitarian foes.

After 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." This echoed the official slogan of the communist Matyas Rakosi regime in Hungary before 1956: "Who is not with us is against us." The Hungarian revolution changed many things, and by the 1970s the regime of Janos Kadar changed its rhetoric to, "Who is not against us is with us." A softer version, from a dictator who had his political opponents buried in unmarked graves, face down. So much for choice of words.

Monitoring certain foreign nationals in the country was a typical procedure of all totalitarian state police institutions, from the Nazis' Gestapo to the Soviet KGB. Being a target of any such program invokes memories of pre-1989 Hungary. It also raises a constitutional concern.

The relevant part of the 14th Amendment reads, "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Yet the Bush administration denies these rights to people who happened to have been born in the wrong country. The selective application of "the supreme law of the land" is a typically totalitarian method.

I come from a NATO ally of the United States, and the next time I visit my father (a U.S. citizen), go to research our common history or lecture at a conference, I'll be glad to enter another police archive. Maybe the Department of Homeland Security should ask the Hungarian National Archives for my Hungarian police files. After all, they are open for research now, and DHS can also get tips on potential informers.

It will be fun to be photographed and fingerprinted like a common criminal for the first time in my life. Shall I wear my orange jumpsuit?

Tibor Glant is chair of the North American department at the University of Debrecen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FY 2003 NUMBERS

Source: The Congressional Reasearch Service (CRS)

Report: U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions.


Processing backlogs, discussed later in this
report, also have inadvertently reduced the number of LPRs in FY2003. USCIS was
only able to process 161,579 of the potential 226,000 family-sponsored LPRs in
FY2003, and thus 64,421 LPR visas are rolling over to the FY2004 employment-based
categories.


SO the total number for EB in FY 2004 should be 140,000 + 64,421 > 200,00

Have you seen them??
 
Re: FY 2003 NUMBERS

Originally posted by cinta

Processing backlogs, discussed later in this
report, also have inadvertently reduced the number of LPRs in FY2003. USCIS was
only able to process 161,579 of the potential 226,000 family-sponsored LPRs in
FY2003, and thus 64,421 LPR visas are rolling over to the FY2004 employment-based
categories.

Have you seen them??

Cinta -

Let me throw out this scenario to see what your opinion is - if the fact that family based immigration also has huge backlogs, which cause additional visa numbers to get allocated to EB beneficiaries, do you think there could be a backlash against us (read EB ppl) and more USCIS resources be moved to adjudicate to reduce the FB backlogs? (esp in an election year)

Just wanted to see what you thought...

K
 
Originally posted by cinta
Source: The Congressional Reasearch Service (CRS)

Report: U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions.


Processing backlogs, discussed later in this
report, also have inadvertently reduced the number of LPRs in FY2003. USCIS was
only able to process 161,579 of the potential 226,000 family-sponsored LPRs in
FY2003, and thus 64,421 LPR visas are rolling over to the FY2004 employment-based
categories.


SO the total number for EB in FY 2004 should be 140,000 + 64,421 > 200,00

Have you seen them??

Good reference, Cinta.
Backlog of family based GCs helps EB GCs. CIS is obligated to issue all the available employment based immigrant visa in the current fiscal year itself since EB immigrant visa cannot be rolled over.
 
Re: Re: FY 2003 NUMBERS

Originally posted by PhillyKP
Cinta -

Let me throw out this scenario to see what your opinion is - if the fact that family based immigration also has huge backlogs, which cause additional visa numbers to get allocated to EB beneficiaries, do you think there could be a backlash against us (read EB ppl) and more USCIS resources be moved to adjudicate to reduce the FB backlogs? (esp in an election year)

Just wanted to see what you thought...

K

Not at all. We are all pretty much in the same boat as far as the Processing/Backlog problem is concerned. Immigration is melting down for all...
The difference is that we are here and are working and should have had a better treatment..
The other facet of the family-based immigration is the long wait to have one's visa current, for example it can take 20 years for a brother/sister type application for the Philippines..this is what AILA and others are referring to when they use the term "backlog". Too bad! At least they are in their native country; what can I say? And even when their visa becomes current then they have the Processing delays/backlogs like everybody else. But this problem of family re-unification existed years back..

Note: I am not sure if the unused numbers from EB roll back to Family ??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cinta, we all appreciate your efforts in dealing with the immigration issues. I don't know if anyone has asked you before, but can you be part of the core team which is doing all it can to reduce the immigration backlogs? I have always liked your research and opinions and I think you can be a great asset to the team.
 
Link

The link for the Permanent Admissions from CRS.

http://www.imwong.com/news/newsCurrent.htm

2/22/04 - Congressional Research Service (CRS) Examines U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions
CRS issued a report on 2/18/04 on "U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions." The report covers current
law and policy, admission trends, backlogs and waiting times and current issues and legislation, and also contains a
series of useful charts. more...
 
US CIS Issues

Ombudsman, Customer Service, The culture of "NO".

http://www.ilw.com/cgi-shl/pr.pl

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2004,0224-katriltr.pdf
Lawyer's letter to Ombudsman

http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/articles/2004,0224-memor.pdf
the culture of "NO"

Editor's Comments
Improved Customer Service At DHS
The Department of Homeland Security has identified improved customer service for immigration benefit processing as priority #6 in its strategic plan. Sadly, DHS today operates in a "culture of No". In contrast, a Legacy INS memo from 1980 says "[Adjudicators] with [their] broad knowledge of law and policy, [should all] approach [applications and petitions] attitudinally, in a friendly professional manner, looking for a way to approve them." While no sane person would have any quarrel with strict security measures to guard against terrorists, it is merely stating the obvious to note that more than 99.99% of immigrants to our shores are not terrorists and simply wish to achieve the American dream by casting their lot with us. The "culture of No" is simply an anti-immigration agenda masquerading in the guise of security for our homeland. This gem of a memo is the subject of today's Featured Article, "Combatting The 'Culture Of No' In Immigration" by Angelo Paparelli. For all items, see below.



http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/doj_news/2004,0224-strategicplan.shtm Customer Service is #6 to DHS
 
Top