RTD - Validity

[RAsylee]

I have been obtaining RTD for past 5 years. RTD is always issued for one year from the date of issue. I use it to travel to Canada only, few times a year. But since it expires in one year, I have to request for RTD every year and also to obtain a Canadian Visa every year after the RTD has been issued.

I was curious that if some one knows that RTD can be issued for a period longer than one year? Any information about this will be appreciated.

 

[Andrew01]

same problem

i have the same exact problem. I apply RTD and Canadian Visa but only use it a couple of times a year! Its very sad that we have to get a new RTD every year.

 

[Lazerthegreat]

RTDs are only issued for one year duration under current immigration. In Germany they issue for 10 years and people become citizens before their RTD expires. But this is America. Capatalist money hungry government. So be prepared for it.

 

[shamshon]

I think the issue is not just that the government wants more money. The issue is the disgraceful treatment with which asylee are treated in this country. The implicit message is: we will follow the Geneva convention and grant you asylum however, we will treat you with suspicion and will never consider you one of us unless you really spend at least 10 or 15 years begging to get the green card. My honest advice to anyone who would pursuit this path is to be patient more than he ever was in his life.

 

[alanpero2]

Originally posted by shamshon
I think the issue is not just that the government wants more money. The issue is the disgraceful treatment with which asylee are treated in this country. The implicit message is: we will follow the Geneva convention and grant you asylum however, we will treat you with suspicion and will never consider you one of us unless you really spend at least 10 or 15 years begging to get the green card. My honest advice to anyone who would pursuit this path is to be patient more than he ever was in his life.

That is not true either. The asylum Immigration reform of 1995 is in part what really is making us wating for that long. This reform was intended to reduce the abuse of the system by a flood of "asylum" applicants whose goal was to get a EAD only.
Asylees that applied in 1995 were interviewed the same year and those that were approved, got their LPR by 1997. Also, by the beginning of the 90's the goverment waived asylees of the 10K quota. This two facts prove that it is not the intention to make us wait for that long.
In 1995, at the time of the reform, INS didn't have enough resources to work at the same time the "old" asylum cases (filed before 1995) and the "new" asylum cases, and the "old" cases were put on hold creating the backlog.
I don't think they intentionally want us to wait for that long. It happens that each time they open a door for legal immigration there is a flood of applicants trying to get in. And, on the other hand they don't show any interest in trying to expedite the approval of our cases.
Otherwise, I agree that we have to be extremely patient.

 

[shamshon]

So, this immigration reform act solidifies my argument about this government's attitude towards asylee. It seems as if they wanted to take an opportunity and capitalize on the anti-immigrant sentiment in this country through this act. The intention was always there but there was no opportunity to act on it until this act was approved. alanpero, I think it would be naive to think that this government is not discriminating againt asylees. If i am wrong why they did not put a ceiling on refugees and did it only to asylees. Do you know that they allow 100000 refugee every year to this country (10 times the number of asylees)

 

[Gilbert]

Dear Shamshon,

I very much respect your right to speak your mind, but many of us here frankly do not agree with--and do not appreciate--your recent comments.

The Geneva Convention you mentioned does NOT require the level of generosity displayed by the US government. All the convention does is to prohibit the return of people to places of persecution. The US government can choose to house all asylees in a camp, perhaps on an island. International law does not mandate any country to place successful applicants on a path to eventual citizenship, to permit them to reunite with immediate family members (the I-730 process) and to access welfare benefits to an extent far greater than any other lawful immigrants (including the spouses and children of citizens). The U.S. government does all of the above and then some. If this country wants to "capitalize on the anti-immigrant sentiment" and "discriminat[e] against asylees", Congress could abolish or severely undercut the asylum program tomorrow.

Remember, refugees have a cap too--which applies to their admission to the US, not adjustment. The opposite is true of asylees.

The asylum system is not perfect (what is perfect in this world?). But I speak for a vast majority of asylees and former asylees (now LPRs and citizens) in expressing gratitude to this wonderful country for sheltering us from tyranny of whatever form and allowing us to rebuild successful lives here. Asylees are among the most patriotic Americans I know.

 

[alanpero2]

Originally posted by shamshon
So, this immigration reform act solidifies my argument about this government's attitude towards asylee. It seems as if they wanted to take an opportunity and capitalize on the anti-immigrant sentiment in this country through this act. The intention was always there but there was no opportunity to act on it until this act was approved. alanpero, I think it would be naive to think that this government is not discriminating againt asylees. If i am wrong why they did not put a ceiling on refugees and did it only to asylees. Do you know that they allow 100000 refugee every year to this country (10 times the number of asylees)

No, that Immigration reform doesn't solidify your argument. Back in 1994 the asylum sustem was clearly being abused by people frivously applying for asylum, just to get the EAD. The reform was at that time needed to stop the problem created by a lot of people trying to get EAD's only. That reform affected the processing of my application and the ones of many of us here waiting for more than 9 years, but I have to admit it was necessary, though it hurt me.
The number of frivoluos asylum applications went down dramatically; but now, nine years after, there is again a huge backlog of asylum applicants and something will need to be done sooner or later.
That reform had nothing to do with any anti asylee attitude as you suggest.
I gave you two examples showing that the supposed anti asylee attitude is not real. I am not saying they care about us, but they are not as bad as you say.
As Gilbert pointed out, if that attitude existed they would be doing worse things to us.
I understand your fustration. I have the same feeling, and respect your point of view but I think you are wrong because you have not analyzed the entire scenario.
Regards

 

[Gilbert]

morover

The reason that we have such a huge adjustment backlog is that for the past few years a record number of people have been granted asylum. The approval rate keeps going up, it is now around 50% or so. This is hardly evidence of any anti-asylee bias. Should that exist, the approval rate would be very very low.

Many lawmakers recognize the seriousness of the backlog and have introduced remedial legislation. None has come close to being passed, but our democracy requires a deliberative process. Congress should not generally rush into judgment in any matter. Something WILL be done in the future. The only question is when. When the cap was raised in 90, it was the result of four or five years of repeated work.

I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but I recently learned from a good source that in summer 2001 a consensus was being reached at the committee level to deal with the adjustment cap. But then the horrible events of September 11th intervened. It is perfectly understandable that lawmakers have turned their attention to protecting the American homeland.

I also agreed that the reform launched by the Clinton administration in 1995 was critical to preserving the integrity of our asylum process and to combating immigration fraud.

PS: the brothers and sisters of citizens wait more than 10 years to immigrate. Is that evidence of an anti siblings feeling?

 

[alanpero2]

Backlog

Originally posted by alanpero2
No, that Immigration reform doesn't solidify your argument. Back in 1994 the asylum sustem was clearly being abused by people frivously applying for asylum, just to get the EAD. The reform was at that time needed to stop the problem created by a lot of people trying to get EAD's only. That reform affected the processing of my application and the ones of many of us here waiting for more than 9 years, but I have to admit it was necessary, though it hurt me.
The number of frivoluos asylum applications went down dramatically; but now, nine years after, there is again a huge backlog of asylum applicants and something will need to be done sooner or later.
That reform had nothing to do with any anti asylee attitude as you suggest.
I gave you two examples showing that the supposed anti asylee attitude is not real. I am not saying they care about us, but they are not as bad as you say.
As Gilbert pointed out, if that attitude existed they would be doing worse things to us.
I understand your fustration. I have the same feeling, and respect your point of view but I think you are wrong because you have not analyzed the entire scenario.
Regards

The backlog I am referring to is the one for asylum applicants. With the 1995 reform INS, was required to make a decision within six months after the asylum application was filed. But now, due to the huge number of asylum applications being filed, INS is not complying and they are calling for asylum interviews to applicants randomly selected, creating a backlog.
In addition to this, there is the backlog of asylees (with asylum application already apporved) applying to LPR reported to be largely over 100,000 due to the 10K quota.
Something will need to be done with asylum system, sooner or later will happen.

 

[shamshon]

alanpero and Gilbert, I appreciate your points of view; however, you both did not respond to my major question: why create a ceiling for asylees and not everyone else? Why apply reform to asylees and not everyone else? My point is: since 1995, I feel that asylees were singled out. That is the point I am trying to make. There is a huge ethical error by assuming that because some people misused the asylum process, there should be a blanket of suspicion over everyone who goes to this process to the extent that they wait this ridiculous amount of years.

 

[alanpero2]

Originally posted by shamshon
alanpero and Gilbert, I appreciate your points of view; however, you both did not respond to my major question: why create a ceiling for asylees and not everyone else? Why apply reform to asylees and not everyone else? My point is: since 1995, I feel that asylees were singled out. That is the point I am trying to make. There is a huge ethical error by assuming that because some people misused the asylum process, there should be a blanket of suspicion over everyone who goes to this process to the extent that they wait this ridiculous amount of years.

Yes, your questions were clearly answered. There is not such a anti asylee sentiment you suggest.
Why apply reform to asylees and not everyone else? The asylum reform was a need a that time to preserve the system. Go back to the history in 1994 and you will see that it was really necessary. That reform was being "cooked" for years and was catalyzed by the end of 1994.
why create a ceiling for asylees and not everyone else? The ceiling was not created by the reform in 1995. The ceiling existed since the INA was enacted in 1954, I believe originally was 5,000 and later increased to 10,000. More than that, as I explained to you before the ceiling was lifted in the early 90's to allow the so many asylum applicants regularize their immigration status. Doesn't that mean a good sign for you?
There is not such a blanket of suspicion as you suggest. The higher rate of asylum applicants doesn't support what you say.
All your questions have been answered, and I have done my best effort to explain your statement is not correct. Up to now, I do not feel that anti asylee sentiment you mention. You are free to feel that the anti asylee sentiment exists.
I only wanted to point out that what you said is not correct because you have not analyzed the entire scenario.
Again, I am not saying they care about us but are not as bad as you say.

 

[shamshon]

Originally posted by alanpero2
Yes, your questions were clearly answered. There is not such a anti asylee sentiment you suggest.
Why apply reform to asylees and not everyone else? The asylum reform was a need a that time to preserve the system. Go back to the history in 1994 and you will see that it was really necessary. That reform was being "cooked" for years and was catalyzed by the end of 1994.
why create a ceiling for asylees and not everyone else? The ceiling was not created by the reform in 1995. The ceiling existed since the INA was enacted in 1954, I believe originally was 5,000 and later increased to 10,000. More than that, as I explained to you before the ceiling was lifted in the early 90's to allow the so many asylum applicants regularize their immigration status. Doesn't that mean a good sign for you?
There is not such a blanket of suspicion as you suggest. The higher rate of asylum applicants doesn't support what you say.
All your questions have been answered, and I have done my best effort to explain your statement is not correct. Up to now, I do not feel that anti asylee sentiment you mention. You are free to feel that the anti asylee sentiment exists.
I only wanted to point out that what you said is not correct because you have not analyzed the entire scenario.
Again, I am not saying they care about us but are not as bad as you say.

alanpero, it is interesting how we see things differently but I will not say that you are wrong the same you told me that i am wrong. I think it is always possible for 2 people to disagree and yet they are both right in their won ways. You keep saying that there is ceiling only for asylee ( I do not care whether it was in 1954 or in 1995, it is the only ceiling the INS has ever had). There is no ceiling for anyone else. Do not you think that refugees abuse the systme too. Why would you have 40000 jewish refugees every year from the former soviet union even though the anti-semetic sentiments have declined there. As for the higher rate of asylees, it is always expected to have this high rate the more there is injsutice in the world and the more gap you have between the rich and the poor. It is all about politics and voting blocks. As for analyzing the scenario, I only know the following facts: I have been waiting 11 years to get my status adjusted in the United states and it suckssssss. Again, i respect your opinion and I think you are right on your way. There is always this trend by human beings to disconfirm anything that proves that they are being mistreated. More power to you. this is the way to move on with your life. It is hard for me to adopt the same attitude

 

[Gilbert]

ceilings

I would like to get something straight.


There ARE ceilings on almost every category of immigrants to this country. The ONLY exceptions are parents, spouses and minor children of United States citizens, plus registry applicants.

So, PLEASE PLEASE check your facts before making such statements as "[t]here is no ceiling for anyone else" and " it is the only ceiling the INS has ever had."

Regards

 

[Gilbert]

'94 reform

Shamshon,

I hope you understand the import of the '94 asylum reform. Without it, you (and most of us) would still be waiting for a darn interview and facing an uncertain future.

So it is ridiculous to complain about the reform. The asylum program after '94 is indeed the most efficient INS program. Within months (sometimes weeks) of filing, the most meritorious applicants are granted legal status and the chance to begin a new life in America.

 

[alanpero2]

Originally posted by shamshon
alanpero, it is interesting how we see things differently but I will not say that you are wrong the same you told me that i am wrong. I think it is always possible for 2 people to disagree and yet they are both right in their won ways. You keep saying that there is ceiling only for asylee ( I do not care whether it was in 1954 or in 1995, it is the only ceiling the INS has ever had). There is no ceiling for anyone else. Do not you think that refugees abuse the systme too. Why would you have 40000 jewish refugees every year from the former soviet union even though the anti-semetic sentiments have declined there. As for the higher rate of asylees, it is always expected to have this high rate the more there is injsutice in the world and the more gap you have between the rich and the poor. It is all about politics and voting blocks. As for analyzing the scenario, I only know the following facts: I have been waiting 11 years to get my status adjusted in the United states and it suckssssss. Again, i respect your opinion and I think you are right on your way. There is always this trend by human beings to disconfirm anything that proves that they are being mistreated. More power to you. this is the way to move on with your life. It is hard for me to adopt the same attitude

Well, I am going to stop this at this time and make no further comments on this. I have more important issues to care about at this time. After all, it is ggod to know you got all your questions answered. Check Gilbert message about the ceilings, you are also wrong on that.
You are free to live seeing phantoms and clouds where there are not, and blaming on the authorities of the country that gave you the opportunity to live in freedom.
Yes, I have been waiting for nine years and it sucks, I understand that.

 

[Gilbert]

That is a very good metaphor.

Originally posted by alanpero2
You are free to live seeing phantoms and clouds where there are not, and blaming on the authorities of the country that gave you the opportunity to live in freedom.

 

[shamshon]

Originally posted by alanpero2
Well, I am going to stop this at this time and make no further comments on this. I have more important issues to care about at this time. After all, it is ggod to know you got all your questions answered. Check Gilbert message about the ceilings, you are also wrong on that.
You are free to live seeing phantoms and clouds where there are not, and blaming on the authorities of the country that gave you the opportunity to live in freedom.
Yes, I have been waiting for nine years and it sucks, I understand that.

alanpero,
I promise you that this is my last response to you. I think your response to me would have much different if you are not reaching the end of the road with this process ( i hope so). Ofcourse you do not see phantoms and clouds because you passed through the hell process that is called political asylum. I can not do that. I am at the end of the road too but I will never forget the humilation that I faced in the past 10 years. i also feel the pain of those who just applied and do not know what they are expecting. I hope everything stays rosy to you. Cheers

 

[shamshon]

Gilbert,
I do not know what is the difference between waiting for a darn interview as you call it and a darn green card. As a matter of fact, if someone applies for adjustment today, based on his granted asylum, he or she will have to wait more than darn 10 years. I think it is laughable to think that this reform has made life easier for asylee. As for the ceiling, you are right however let me reiterate that the ceiling for asylee is ridiculously low compared to other ceilings. So I concede that i made a mistake about my statements regarding the ceiling however the principle remains the same: asylees are singles out....

 

[Gilbert]

HUGE DIFFERENCES

The difference between waiting for an asylum interview and for a green card as an asylee is HUGE. One granted asylum is merely in the position of WHEN he or she will become a citizen and not IF he/she will become a citizen. A person in asylum status CAN get on with his or her life while a person applying for asylum CANNOT. He or she is in limbo and can be deported at any time.


*An asylee will be eligible to hold most available jobs on the market.

*If the person granted asylum is a teenager with academic aptitude, he will be able to pursue higher education. On the other hand, a person with pending status often cannot because of cost and his ineligibility for most scholarships (I know a number of bright kids in this regretable situation).

*If the asylee has a spouse and kids abroad, they can leave harm's way and immediately enter this country. No sponsorship agreement is needed--something that even citizens have to provide for their spouses's admission.

*If the asylee happens to be elderly or disabled, she can receive food stamp, Medicaid, SSA and the like. An asylum applicant is excluded from those, so are most immigrants (green card holders)who have not yet accumulated enough "social security credits."

*An asylee will receive a homestead exemption for his residential property taxes in states where such exemption applies.

*With the new rules alien licensing in the post 911 world, an asylee will not have to go back to the DMV office every year to renew his license. He will be issed one on the same basis as citizens and permanent residents. For example, browse this.

The list is endless. I can go on but for a lack of time.

My point is please understand asylum is a major gift bestowed upon us by the American people. Treasure it and refrain from making baseless allegations.