Sponsoring parent in light of the new immigration bill

B

bookreader

Registered Users (C)
Hello All,
I have applied for the USC approx. 4 months back and am expecting it soon. I want to sponsor green card for my Father who is 65 years old. From what I have read about the new immigration bill, I understand that it is going to become a lot harder due to the proposed quota system they will apply for parent's green card. I am confused about the time from when this bill will be applicable. Immigration gurus on this forum please shed some light on this !!
 
I was going to ask the same thing (I am also thinking about sponsoring GCs for my parents after I get my citizenship). Does anyone know the details about what is proposed in the new bill when it comes to eligibility of parents ? Of course there is only a very small chance that the bill will pass unchanged and become law. Democrats are clearly not happy with the new restrictions on family-based immigration and so I am sure the bill will undergo a lot of changes before it passes. We will just have to wait and see what happens (I think Bush said he wants to sign the bill by the end of summer but the issue of dealing with illegal immigrants is quite explosive and could end up delaying or even killing the bill altogether).

-KM
 
My understanding is that the new bill would greatly restrict family immigration and that preferences would be given to spouses and minor children. Hardest hit would be adult children and siblings. I have not seen a lot of discussion on parents. Even tho' passage of the bill as-is would be unlikley, I would personally apply as soon as possible.

One of the primary reasons I filed an N-400 was because of the growing gap between citizens and legal residents. Who knows what the future legislation might hold .... limits to GC renewals ??????

My personal (non-legal) opinions only.
 
bookreader said:
Hello All,
I am confused about the time from when this bill will be applicable. Immigration gurus on this forum please shed some light on this !!
Click to expand...

How can we? Nothing has actually been introduced and will not be until Monday. At that point we'll see.

rwsh said:
Who knows what the future legislation might hold .... limits to GC renewals ??????
Click to expand...

You're just being hysterical. Permanent Residence is just that, permanent.
 
Now that I am a citizen, I'll try my darndest to find out about each and every congressman/senator who voted for this new immig. bill and make sure I NEVER ever vote for them! Just the concept of a "Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants" makes me want to barf! I can't believe the audacity of these people who reward this stuff.

While people like us who play by the rules, come here legally, wait in line for years, pay taxes, have to show good moral character, go through a rigorous background check and are good citizens, we then have that very same government saying it's okay to break the rules - we'll just slap you on the wrist and reward you with citizenship. Absolutely SICK! And they say that's going to curb illegal immig! Huh? I say it's going to open the flood gates - it's no different than rewarding criminal behavior. No different. Why even have any rules - just let people pour in through our borders, let them hide for 5-10 years, NOT PAY TAXES, not be subject to any real laws and then lets just give them a carrot at the end. Nice

Sorry, but if you're an illegal immigrant, then the govt. needs to follow the law and in case congress has forgotten to apply it to illegals, here is it again: you get arrested and deported. No hearings unless there are serious grounds for asylum. End of story. No if's and's or but's.

Funny thing is have you ever thought about the phrase "illegal immigrants"? It's the mother of all oxymorrons! An immigrant is someone who migrates to another land based on that new country's laws and procedures. If you are "illegal" how can you "immigrate"? How about simply calling it what it is: "Illegal migration" or "trespassing"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, isn't that a shame ? When I tell my American colleagues at work about how long it has taken me to get to this stage (almost 13 years) they joke that if I had snuck in across the border I probably could have become a citizen a lot sooner.

But I don't think the so-called path to citizenship that the new bill proposes is going to be all that easy. I think the people who have been illegal don't have a lot of incentives to come out of shadows and play by the rules (pay a $5000 fine, go back to their home country and re-enter legally, wait a long time to get a GC, etc) and so the bill won't fix anything.

I think one reason why a massive crackdown and deportation of illegal aliens is not practical (other than the vested business interests that want to keep captive cheap labor easily accessible) is the fact that many of these people have kids who are American citizens by birth. I think one of the first steps towards curbing illegal immigration would be to close that loophole and require parents to have a legal status before a child born in the US can automatically become a citizen.

-KM

Now that I am a citizen, I'll try my darndest to find out about each and every congressman/senator who voted for this new immig. bill and make sure I NEVER ever vote for them! Just the concept of a "Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants" make me want to barf! I can't believe the audacity of these people who reward this stuff.

While people like us who play by the rules, come here legally, wait in line for years, pay taxes, have to show good moral character, go through a rigorous background check and are good citizens, we then have that very same government saying it's okay to break the rules - we'll just slap you on the wrist and reward you with citizenship. Absolutely SICK! And they say that's going to curb illegal immig! Huh? I say it's going to open the flood gates - it's no different than rewarding criminal behavior. No different. Why even have any rules - just let people pour in through our borders, let them hide for 5-10 years, NOT PAY TAXES, not be subject to any real laws and then lets just give them a carrot at the end. Nice

Sorry, but if you're an illegal immigrant, then the govt. needs to follow the law and in case congress has forgotten to apply it to illegals, here is it again: you get arrested and deported. No hearings unless there are serious grounds for asylum. End of story. No if's and's or but's.

Funny thing is have you ever thought about the phrase "illegal immigrants"? It's the mother of all oxymorrons! An immigrant is someone who migrates to another land based on that new country's laws and procedures. If you are "illegal" how can you "immigrate"? How about simply calling it what it is: "Illegal migration" or "trespassing"?
Click to expand...
 
TheRealCanadian said:
How can we? Nothing has actually been introduced and will not be until Monday. At that point we'll see.



You're just being hysterical. Permanent Residence is just that, permanent.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the suggestion of hysteria.

1) I was granted so-called Permanent Residence in 1983.
2) My Green Card was issued for life, with no expiration date.
3) Then sometime in the early 90s (?) lifetime Green Cards were discontinued and were issued for ten years only with the opportunity of renewal.
4) The last time I entered the US (January 2007), the immigration officer said that I was in violation of policy by carrying that card and that I should also have replaced it with a 10-year version.
5) He also said that if I traveled on my current lifetime card again, I would be at risk of having it confiscated.

So, what are we to conclude from the above? Of course, the IO may well have been both incorrect and out-of-line. However, there appears to be at least a perception that Green Cards are a lot less permanent than they used to be. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in current immigration law that stipulates that 10-year Green Cards carry the right of an indefinite number of renewals.

Similarly, and going back to the original post, a naturalized US citizen is currently allowed to petition for his/her parents' entry and there is now a proposal being debated that may limit or remove this right. It remains to be seen.

Thus I would respectfully argue that to make the assumption that any immigration law and policy (other than defined by the Constitution, unless changed) carries the stamp of permanency is nothing short of naive.
 
Stay outside the US too long - loose your card and be denied reentry
Convicted of a crime of moral turpitude - loose your card and be deported
Then of course there are those gray areas where you might have inadvertently shown intent to abandon residency.

So really I don't see there is anything "permanent" about the current definition of a Permanent Resident...
 
I got my GC in the spring of 1996. If I remember correctly, that was when the deadline for converting the old lifetime GCs into the new 10 year GCs hit. The INS offices were *very* packed.

And, if you tried to ask a question about GCs, everyone assumed you were asking about the new rules and would answer a question you didn't ask - kind of like now, if your N-400 gets delayed, the stock answer is "well there's nothing I can do about name check". The delays on my N-400 had nothing to do with name check.
 
rwsh & boatbod

You both make good points. I never really thought about all those possibilites of how "permanent" residents are not really that permanent. The stuff about your lifetime GC is interesting - that in iteself proves that it's not a permanent situation and can be revoked/changed anytime: if they did it once, they'll do it again.

Glad I'm a citizen now and that can NEVER be revoked (unless you commit treason or fight for a foreign country).
 
kagemusha said:
...I think the people who have been illegal don't have a lot of incentives to come out of shadows and play by the rules (pay a $5000 fine, go back to their home country and re-enter legally, wait a long time to get a GC, etc) and so the bill won't fix anything.
Click to expand...
Well, it won't fix the illegal migration issue, but it sure as heck will announce to the world that the U.S. is open for business for more illegal migration and now will actually reward you in the end :mad:. What other message are we sending?

kagemusha said:
...
...close that loophole and require parents to have a legal status before a child born in the US can automatically become a citizen.
Click to expand...
I like the sound of that: "Come here illegaly, have kids, still no U.S. citizenship for anyone in your family - not even your U.S. born kids" ! I like the sound of that - maybe that might fix it to an extent.
 
I read this thread and I feel a great amount of dismay. I would have expected this point of view from people who have been a few generations in this country, but not from new or soon to be U.S. citizens. I don't see it as a loophole, I see it as a fundamental right under the constitution. That it has some effects that can seem abusive to some, I don't think it warrants playing with such a fundamental right. In my book one is either pro ius-sanguini or pro ius-solii. I believe that for a young country like this, made up of immigrants from all over the world ius-solii is the better choice and has to be applied across the board. When laws become discriminating, they generate discrimination.

I would have expected more compassion for undocumented immigrants from this board. Even when comparing it with criminals who go to jail, they go to jail, but once they are out they have paid their debt to society. Undocumented immigrants pay also a hidden penalty in lack of mobility and opportunity and fear of deportation, one way or another most crimes are paid either with money or time in prison, so why couldn't this "crime" of irregular immigration be paid somewhat. Anyway, as the French say "je sui desolee".

PS: Believe it or not, a lot of undocumented immigrants pay taxes, and they pay social security and they will never see a dime out of it because the numbers are bogus. I would say that is a pretty nice windfall to the government. Please if you are going to comment about undocumented immigrants please educate yourself first and don't take the right wing radio talk shows for the truth, because they spew quite a bit of crap through their loud pie holes.
 
Sins of the father...

I would not be in favor of amending the constitution to deny US citizenship to US born children based on their national origin or the transgression of immigration law by their parents. Not would it a gross miscarriage of justice - it would just create a permanent underclass of illegals.

As a nation, we are remarkably tolerant of all sorts of law breakers - why do people who violate immigration law raise such a sense of outrage? Somehow they are eligible to mow our lawns, clean our dishes, cook our food, take care of our kids, build and repair our houses, work in our factories and farms, pick our fruits but it offends us so much that they breath our air and drink our water?

Please don't be quick on the trigger with righteousness here...

Roger "There But for the Grace of God go I" kint
 
Huracan,
I could write a 300 page novel about all the things I disagree with in your post and also the can of worms that might open.... but I digress. What I will say is this: It is NOT a "fundamental right under the constitution" to violate immigatration rules of this country. It is not a "fundamental right under the constitution" to come here illegally, then hold mass demonstrations and DEMAND citizenship/LPR status and worse still, wave the Mexican, Honduran, Nicaraguan, whatever else flags during the rallys - that's what I find dispicable. What's your stand on that Huracan? How would you like it if you stood in line at the check out counter and then someone cut in fron of you and demanded to be attended to just because he was in the Grocery store? Is that okay? Sorry, the "criminals going to jail and paying there debt" analogy simply does not cut it. They haven't paid any debt at all - they choose to come here illgally and that's what makes it tougher for you and me! It makes it tougher for you and me in the sense that now you can't easily bring your brother here legally - he has to wait longer, the laws get tougher for the legal ones. Let me tell you Mexico is not a bad place at all - tons of Americans go there to vacation and enjoy the beautiful water and air - people DON'T HAVE TO COME HERE ILLEGALLY! They can do it the right way like you and I.

rogerKint
Good points about the lawn mowing, cleaning houses stuff, but what in the world has that to do with the country enforcing it's sovereign laws? How do you or I know for a fact that the guy mowing your lawn is illegal in the first place? Why single out a class of laborers to make your point? "As a nation, we are remarkably tolerant of all sorts of law breakers"? Really? Have you filled out PART 10, sect. A of the N-400? Check it out and let us know what you think then.

I don't think people on this thread including myself have anything against illegals as human beings racially or othewise. It's a simple issue of people breaking laws, those same laws - you know - getting a $50 ticket for speeding and a $200 ticket for running a red light that you have to answer to an IO, yes that's what I'm talking about. We simply can't have it both ways.... we simply can't talk about following the law while rewarding people who blatently break it. If a criminal was only defined as someone who stole, raped, murdered and pillaged, then why did Martha Stewart go to jail. Sorry pal - criminals come in all forms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that for a young country like this, made up of immigrants from all over the world ius-solii is the better choice and has to be applied across the board.
Click to expand...

If we were to adhere to the original spirit in which this nation of immigrants was formed we would have to have open borders and welcome "huddled masses" from all over the world with no restrictions whatsoever. Unfortunately that is not practical any more and hence the need for immigration laws and regulations. All I am trying to say is that even things in the constitution are not set in stone and may sometimes have to be amended to reflect the reality of the current situation.

While I realize that this kind of an amendment may never pass (it would be seen as going against the very principles on which this country was formed), it is one possible way to clamp down on illegal immigration (which is definitely an issue with no easy solutions). There are only 2 ways to handle the 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the country - confer legal status to all of them, no questions asked (and this would encourage even more illegal immigration and be terribly unfair to the people who have been trying to come here legally) or deport them en masse to their home countries and that is simply not feasible right now from a humanitarian standpoint given that you could be separating the illegal parents from their American children (who by definition cannot be deported). Any other ways around the problem ?

-KM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top