Trump attacks Diversity Visa program

Discussion in 'Lottery Visas - DV' started by rafi-cairo, Nov 1, 2017.

  1. Pierre82

    Pierre82 Well-Known Member

    I think Trump wants Dems to accept his proposal and he will reject anything that is not similar to what his requesting and this includes eliminating DV and chain migration.

    I doubt that DV will survive this negotiation since no one is really trying to save it. The priority right now is DACA and funding for the border wall.
  2. Qewty

    Qewty Registered Users (C)

    Definitely go and check it out @Pierre82 . After this years results, we will seriously discuss Canada. Having a Canadian husband, this option is very achievable for us. However, it is not America, so spending a little time there is worth the effort to make sure it ticks all of your boxes. I just have to convince my hubby that returning to the cold is a good thing! lol

    Warm wishes

    Pierre82 likes this.
  3. Pierre82

    Pierre82 Well-Known Member

    I will take some time this year to visit, probably during the summer and see how things work over there. Its not the USA no doubt but looking at how things are shifting over there, its always good to consider other options :)
    Qewty likes this.
  4. Mushy_hot

    Mushy_hot Registered Users (C)

    I know chances are very low but the only thing we can do now is to remain positive. Imagine we are talking about if DV lottery will survive or not and even if it survives we still have to be selected.
  5. SusieQQQ

    SusieQQQ Well-Known Member

    Hope is all very well, but you need to be realistic too about likely outcomes rather than wishing. Pierre is planning to investigate Canada. If it’s important for you to leave your home country (DV winners run the range of “it’s a fun adventure” to desperately needing to leave where they are) then it’s definitely time to be looking at Plan B - not that winning a lottery should ever be Plan A anyway.
    Qewty likes this.
  6. Xarthisius

    Xarthisius Active Member

  7. Pierre82

    Pierre82 Well-Known Member

  8. Sm1smom

    Sm1smom Super Moderator

  9. SusieQQQ

    SusieQQQ Well-Known Member

    I’m in two minds about this. At face value I have the same reaction as you, and I certainly think some of the things in that list are unfair to disallow to immigrants. But there are certainly those immigrants who do find ways to abuse the system and it puts the rest of us in a bad light. We actually had someone here a while ago working in a seasonal job and kind of boasting about how they used benefits to get through the off-season (rather than moving somewhere they could get a year round job or accepting a longer commute in the off-season.) As the article points out, those who really need access to benefits (refugees and asylees) are allowed to use them.
  10. Mushy_hot

    Mushy_hot Registered Users (C)

  11. Xarthisius

    Xarthisius Active Member

    The question is how widespread is the abuse of the system. If we took forum activity as an indicator, there's aforementioned person living off-season at US tax payers' expense. On the other hand I saw at least a couple of questions about WIC in the AOS thread (and Simon's blog comments) and that's just a handful of places I follow. CHIP also doesn't sound as something that can get you through the winter, but rather like a matter of life and death for some children out there...
  12. Xarthisius

    Xarthisius Active Member

    I don't know if they can apply any rule, but this is certainly within the scope of their power without any congressional permission.
  13. SusieQQQ

    SusieQQQ Well-Known Member

    Again, I didn’t say agreed with every line item.
    The devil’s advocate response is you undertake not to be a public charge when you get a green card, and it’s often cheaper to feed and house children “back home” than in the US. Is it ideal? Of course not.

    I’m on another forum as well that is much more active than this one in all categories other than DV. One of the favored questions on there is by sponsors of parents’ green cards, trying to get medical care for those parents - which can be huge as you know - on a subsidized basis. The discussions inkcude details of figuring out which states are best for maximizing legal, or barely legal, use of public funds. Of course there are way more parent visas than DV ones overall so things in this proposal like the suggestion to restrict ACA should be seen in that context too.
  14. Xarthisius

    Xarthisius Active Member

    I don't follow that closely, but didn't Trump stop ACA federal subsidies in October 2017?
  15. SusieQQQ

    SusieQQQ Well-Known Member

    No idea, I just know that abuse of public funds seems significantly more prevalent in certain other immigrant categories and that it’s probably a mistake to use a DV forum - a tiny sample of a tiny slice of overall immigration- as evidence for more general issues. I don’t like the guy and his extreme misinformation one bit, and Dv is no doubt being unfairly targeted in the way he’s calling it out, but there are still some nuggets of fact behind some of the issues (even if he’s totally hypocritical with Trump companies just as guilty of abusing H and seasonal worker visas as anyone else)
  16. Dan44

    Dan44 New Member

    I've read prior comments about DV2018 being unaffected by most bills that have been put forward however with this weeks immigration debate in the senate I'm a little on edge. Can anyone weigh in on what is currently being proposed and whether a redistribution of DV2018 visas is a possibility or are we in fact safe? I understand this is an annoying, recurring question but it seems just when you think you can breathe a sigh of relief something else comes up with this administration. Thanks for your answers, and patience.
  17. MJS_DV2018_EU

    MJS_DV2018_EU New Member

    There was one bill I saw that mentioned a reallocation of the visas from several categories, of which DV was one, immediately "as required by approved DACA related applications" sort of idea. This has the potential to affect DV2018 and to believe otherwise is foolish. If something like that gets approved, then higher numbers would have to be a little concerned.

    HOWEVER, remember that there's a typical pace of these things and the number of approved DACA related applications that could be processed by Sept 30 would be limited. The visas would come from the pool of unassigned visas, so anyone with an interview scheduled would be unaffected. So even if something like this did pass, MOST of DV2018 would be unaffected.

    The bill I saw stated that the number of reallocated visas could not exceed the number of approved DACA related applications. And there were 2-3 other categories from which visas could be pulled to meet this demand as well.

    A reallocation of visas to meet DACA demands does make more sense and may be more palatable to Dems than a cancellation, so I don't think it is impossible that the idea will be presented. But I think it would affect 2019 more than 2018 in any case.
  18. Britsimon

    Britsimon Super Moderator

    To spread nonsense about dv2018 being affected is foolish.
  19. MJS_DV2018_EU

    MJS_DV2018_EU New Member

    You're basing that on the assumption that, even if such a (re-allocation) proposal got passed, progress on DACA individuals' applications couldn't be quick enough to affect DV2018. That's probably true. But there's no effective date restriction crafted into the particular bill to which I am referring.
  20. FlyingDonkey

    FlyingDonkey New Member

    This article from an hour ago says they have a deal in progress that doesn't touch family immigration or the DV lottery...

    So at the moment until something is signed into law it isn't worth freaking people out that they may cut off dv2018, as who knows the DV lottery may survive, or it may be gone tomorrow, it's all a guessing game

Share This Page