your opinion on immigration

[Darnell 8,478]

And make sure they are very well funded.

Yes, that's a given. Sorry if I was being obtuse.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Personally I feel that I should be free to marry anyone I choose anywhere in the world and bring her here. Of course there are a few things that should bar her and that is a disease that can harm anyone else, She belongs to a group that wants to bring down my great country, she has proven in the past to be a scammer. As for me I should be allowed to petition for anyone I choose if I show I can support them, am not a criminal and a full citizen. Of course I should be allowed a certain amount of times such as once every 5-10 years. The government is not my babysitter after all.

As for illegal immigration. They are criminals and should never be rewarded in any way. Found out then they should be deported and a file set up that bars them from ever being able to become legal. Even if they are pregnant and have a kid the baby should not be allowed to be a citizen outright. If they are illegally and make a family and have kids then they should still be thrown out and that is a tragedy as the kids are hurt by their parent being a felon and never allowed to be a citizen. Boo hoo.

Edited May 30, 2010 by luckytxn

[clayr1 3]

I think the petitioner should be interviewed as well, especially if you were turned down the first time. At least give you a chance to disprove the CO finding in person and in a timely fashion. Come on, when you ask my fiance where I went to high school, that was 23 years ago. All of my descrepancies could be easily explained. Why the need to start back at the beginning? It's just more money they get to collect. I understand the motive to commit fraud, especially from a poor country, but 10 minutes of someone's time is not that much to ask. So if she passes the next interview does the state dept not think they made a mistake the first time?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I would change the immigration system completely. Com-ple-te-ly.

Given the current economic climate, I would slow immigration down for now. That means, in regard to family immigration, I would only spouses of US citizens and their minor children to immigrate. That's it. No chain immigration anymore. Parents and uncles and grandparents and nephews are not longer eligible to immigrate until the US economy has completely recovered.

If we want diversity in America (meaning the US of A), we should have a quota rule. What that would boil down to that at this point in time only very few more Mexican citizens can immigrate until we have an almost equal amount of people from other "desirable" countries. Desirable countries would be those with people who fit into the current fabric of US society. That's basically what Mexico's very own immigration policy requires.

Next, forget the poverty line for support. The US doesn't need people who scratch along the poverty line. We don't need more taxi cab drivers, convenience store clerks, or construction workers, just to name a few. Hence, I would require a substantial proof of income, a substantial bond, and substantial fluency in the English language. Basically, if you want to immigrate to the US, show that you're able to support yourself or have a spouse who can provide you with a nice standard of living, and show that you can at least communicate in English before you arrive here.

Ease immigration for investors. Currently you need to be able to invest a Million Dollars (halve a Million in rural areas) and employ 10 new people in order to get a visa. What about those hard working middle class people who have "only" $100K or $200K saved and want to open a small business and employ one or two people that are currently unemployed? I would rather let one of them in then 10 immigrants near the poverty level, competing for a minimum wage job.

Finally, I would ease on work visas. Allow people from south of the border to come, to work, to pay taxes, and to move back and forth freely. As long as they have a job, they are allowed to stay for a certain time per year without having to live in the shadow and without fear of being trapped.

I would provide one last amnesty for people who live in the US for at least 10 years, have paid taxes for at least the last 5 years, have not been in trouble with the law, and can show that they have been able to support themselves.

I would require every US citizen to pass the USCIS citizenship test every naturalized USC has to pass, before being able to vote again. We cannot afford people who have no clue what they are doing decide upon politics.

I would require every newly naturalized USC to surrender their former citizenships within a year, pretty much what the Oath of Allegiance suggests. The Grandfather rule applies.

Finally, I would concur with Jim's suggestion and extend the "conditional" Green Card to 5 years, upon which time the GC holder can become a US citizen. If the marriage fails, the GC becomes void.

Is this a perfect system? Hell no! Are there problems related to it? Hell yes! Will there be unfairness involved? Absolutely. But it's my framework, which is merely an outline of my personal immigration reform, should I be the ruler.

Flame away!

[Indy90 21]

I would change the immigration system completely. Com-ple-te-ly.

Given the current economic climate, I would slow immigration down for now. That means, in regard to family immigration, I would only spouses of US citizens and their minor children to immigrate. That's it. No chain immigration anymore. Parents and uncles and grandparents and nephews are not longer eligible to immigrate until the US economy has completely recovered.

If we want diversity in America (meaning the US of A), we should have a quota rule. What that would boil down to that at this point in time only very few more Mexican citizens can immigrate until we have an almost equal amount of people from other "desirable" countries. Desirable countries would be those with people who fit into the current fabric of US society. That's basically what Mexico's very own immigration policy requires.

Next, forget the poverty line for support. The US doesn't need people who scratch along the poverty line. We don't need more taxi cab drivers, convenience store clerks, or construction workers, just to name a few. Hence, I would require a substantial proof of income, a substantial bond, and substantial fluency in the English language. Basically, if you want to immigrate to the US, show that you're able to support yourself or have a spouse who can provide you with a nice standard of living, and show that you can at least communicate in English before you arrive here.

Ease immigration for investors. Currently you need to be able to invest a Million Dollars (halve a Million in rural areas) and employ 10 new people in order to get a visa. What about those hard working middle class people who have "only" $100K or $200K saved and want to open a small business and employ one or two people that are currently unemployed? I would rather let one of them in then 10 immigrants near the poverty level, competing for a minimum wage job.

Finally, I would ease on work visas. Allow people from south of the border to come, to work, to pay taxes, and to move back and forth freely. As long as they have a job, they are allowed to stay for a certain time per year without having to live in the shadow and without fear of being trapped.

I would provide one last amnesty for people who live in the US for at least 10 years, have paid taxes for at least the last 5 years, have not been in trouble with the law, and can show that they have been able to support themselves.

I would require every US citizen to pass the USCIS citizenship test every naturalized USC has to pass, before being able to vote again. We cannot afford people who have no clue what they are doing decide upon politics.

I would require every newly naturalized USC to surrender their former citizenships within a year, pretty much what the Oath of Allegiance suggests. The Grandfather rule applies.

Finally, I would concur with Jim's suggestion and extend the "conditional" Green Card to 5 years, upon which time the GC holder can become a US citizen. If the marriage fails, the GC becomes void.

Is this a perfect system? Hell no! Are there problems related to it? Hell yes! Will there be unfairness involved? Absolutely. But it's my framework, which is merely an outline of my personal immigration reform, should I be the ruler.

Flame away!

I pretty much agree with this. People that bring there whole families over in many ways are committing visa fraud if they first come over as the spouse or fiancee of a USC, because that probably was there intention in the beginning. I would give USC and permanent residents the same rights to be with their spouses and children...I mean everyone knows that they are going to want to be them, but why make them wait so long?

I agree about the 5 year conditional green card and amnesty, although steps need to be taken to assure that illegal immigration does not continue. I would ban automatic birthright citizenship and use the e-verify system to help stop illegal immigration (take the jobs away will go a long way towards decreasing illegal immigration).

I do have a few disagreements though. Some exceptions need to be made for the income requirement. For example, I make about 2/3rds of the requirement, but I am also a graduate student that has his housing/meals taken care of through scholarships, so my wife really will not be much of a financial burden. Why should I not be allowed to sponsor my wife, who I met several years ago now, especially since I probably will be making over six figures in a few years (assuming the economy gets better)?

Requiring US citizens to take the same test would mean that the constitution would have to be changed because literary tests are banned. I don't believe that should change.

In an ideal situation, getting rid of original citizenship upon becoming a USC sounds good, but often is not easy to do, like in Ecuador.

[JakeinVietnam 0]

Thanks for the replies, I see others have varying degrees of opinion. For those of you who say the nation has bigger problems, I respect your opinion. As far as the public would not support this I disagree because I feel most people support immigration to US when it is done the legal way. The part that makes no sense is that if you fail the interview you have to wait a year or more and pay again. If you want to do a rebuttal it takes just as long and you have to pay also. CO decision is based soley on an interview with the benficiary whom they have met once and no contact with the petitioner. This makes no sense. This is designed to make you give up. There are other ways to weed out the scammers like the ideas given on previous posts. I just want to bring it to the politicians attention the problems with immigration done the legal way and then they can see why there is so much illegal immgration to US. But this is all committed by those who can simply come across a porous border not done by those who need to board a plane. I still say the best way to bring attention to this matter is to bombard their mail with letters containing the problems of our cases and let them know how broke the system is. How many of you have emailed different agencies only to get some generic response saying nothing? How many tried calling state dept and gotten nowhere? Ever email or try to call the consulate in any country? I have asked for 10 minutes of someone's time to disprove CO findings and found their only answer is to refile and wait. I know there are those on this board who disagree but for those of you who are unsatisfied with how your case is going, I urge you to write a respectful letter to your senators and congressman tell them your experience and maybe something can be done. At least make them aware of what goes on, I still am told by some that "Oh it only takes 6-9 months to get your wife to USA" Like one of the responses said that 10% of the denials are legit relationships then there's the thousands I am addressing to make your voice heard. As many times that we are told by USCIS to wait I can't see anything better to do with that time but to get our problems in front of the very people who make the rules. I know at least 5 people who now live in Vietnam because they couldn't get their spouse/fiance a visa, Who is the communist country now?

Clay do a Google search on opinion polls about immigration, and you will see that your statements of most people favoring Immigration are unfounded and not accurate. The fact is that well over 50% of the public when asked about immigration they only think of illegal Mexicans, and then taking jobs away from Americans. The fact is that there are communities (Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, African) that do think about immigration the way you think of, so in theory Americans are becoming a minority, but with that said, this is the reason most "Americans" would not support immigration, and even though we are becoming the minority we are still the majority when it comes to voting, so the congressmen will not listen. I have not emailed any agency about a visa and received a generic response, but anytime I have looked to the government I almost always get a "generic" response, the fact is that is bureaucracy. The government is set up with separation of powers, meaning the president has to have the support of the senate, and then if the supreme court disagrees with the law then it can be challenged. This is called checks and balances, and ALL government offices are run this way. In theory it cuts down on bribes because you cant simply talk to the right person and pay for what you want, and it also makes sure that there is a scape goat when something happens and one of the people or parts of the agency drop the ball. Is it fair, no, but as others have said life is not fair. Do I think that there needs to be a change in the immigration department, yes I do, and I think Jim is point on when he talks about making the conditions harder once here than they currently are. Any woman can get a friend to slap her around and say it was her husband, so that part is hard to prove, but still that should not be a guarantee of a visa if you claim spousal abuse, that should allow you to leave that household, but after that you should have to prove with work, commitment that you are trying to become a better United States Citizen and a benefit to society instead of a burden then and only then you should be given a green card, but still make there be conditions, make it where you have to then work for 5 or 10 years without ever receiving assistance, or still show that you are working or anything, just not get a free green card then allowed to do what ever you want

[JakeinVietnam 0]

I pretty much agree with this. People that bring there whole families over in many ways are committing visa fraud if they first come over as the spouse or fiancee of a USC, because that probably was there intention in the beginning. I would give USC and permanent residents the same rights to be with their spouses and children...I mean everyone knows that they are going to want to be them, but why make them wait so long?

I agree about the 5 year conditional green card and amnesty, although steps need to be taken to assure that illegal immigration does not continue. I would ban automatic birthright citizenship and use the e-verify system to help stop illegal immigration (take the jobs away will go a long way towards decreasing illegal immigration).

I do have a few disagreements though. Some exceptions need to be made for the income requirement. For example, I make about 2/3rds of the requirement, but I am also a graduate student that has his housing/meals taken care of through scholarships, so my wife really will not be much of a financial burden. Why should I not be allowed to sponsor my wife, who I met several years ago now, especially since I probably will be making over six figures in a few years (assuming the economy gets better)?

Requiring US citizens to take the same test would mean that the constitution would have to be changed because literary tests are banned. I don't believe that should change.

In an ideal situation, getting rid of original citizenship upon becoming a USC sounds good, but often is not easy to do, like in Ecuador.

In 6 years when you are making the bigger money you should not have any problems, but what if something happens between now and then, not trying to nit pick, but right now if your funding stopped and you had to pay rent and for food, could you do it and support your wife? What if she needed a tooth pulled or if she fell and broke a leg, what if you were put into the hospital with a life threatening disease right after she arrived. I feel strongly that you need the money now, you cant bring someone over here living pay check to pay check, and just hope nothing bad happens. If you make the good money then in "theory" you should have some sort of safety net for such problems. I think that the minimum requirement should stick, but I truly feel that they need to make sure that the person is not living pay check to pay check. Some people are not good with money, and in some areas you might meet the requirement, but if you live in lets say Hew York City where the average house or apartment rents for something like $1000 or more a month, you have no business bringing a person here, unless you can show savings, or prove that you can at least provide health insurance. Something more than simply saying look I make enough, even though I still live pay check to pay check. The same could also be said for those living in a cheap area, if you make the minimum you could easily support your fiancee, so maybe change the minimum to meet your area. Meaning taking cost of living from different areas into effect. I know this would make lots of headaches, but in theory it would make it more personalized and in some cases it would make it harder, and in others easier, but there also needs to be some sort of rainy day fund that you must have, show a balance of a certain amount, but not current, make it a yearly average balance. Because as it stands now when you need to get a letter from your bank stating your current balance, all you have to do is take out a few pay day loans, and wait for your check to come in before you get the printout, then you can spend it and be on the verge of being overdraft once again. But things can and do happen, and either showing a substantial bank account or at least the ability to provide insurance, both health and life insurance for both of you should be a requirement

[Indy90 21]

In 6 years when you are making the bigger money you should not have any problems, but what if something happens between now and then, not trying to nit pick, but right now if your funding stopped and you had to pay rent and for food, could you do it and support your wife? What if she needed a tooth pulled or if she fell and broke a leg, what if you were put into the hospital with a life threatening disease right after she arrived. I feel strongly that you need the money now, you cant bring someone over here living pay check to pay check, and just hope nothing bad happens. If you make the good money then in "theory" you should have some sort of safety net for such problems. I think that the minimum requirement should stick, but I truly feel that they need to make sure that the person is not living pay check to pay check. Some people are not good with money, and in some areas you might meet the requirement, but if you live in lets say Hew York City where the average house or apartment rents for something like $1000 or more a month, you have no business bringing a person here, unless you can show savings, or prove that you can at least provide health insurance. Something more than simply saying look I make enough, even though I still live pay check to pay check. The same could also be said for those living in a cheap area, if you make the minimum you could easily support your fiancee, so maybe change the minimum to meet your area. Meaning taking cost of living from different areas into effect. I know this would make lots of headaches, but in theory it would make it more personalized and in some cases it would make it harder, and in others easier, but there also needs to be some sort of rainy day fund that you must have, show a balance of a certain amount, but not current, make it a yearly average balance. Because as it stands now when you need to get a letter from your bank stating your current balance, all you have to do is take out a few pay day loans, and wait for your check to come in before you get the printout, then you can spend it and be on the verge of being overdraft once again. But things can and do happen, and either showing a substantial bank account or at least the ability to provide insurance, both health and life insurance for both of you should be a requirement

I really don't see how my situation is going to be that much different in 6 years, other than a bigger salary. Right now, if I lose my funding, I really would not be in too bad of shape because I have very few obligations...I use public transportation and do not have a mortgage. In six years, when I have kids, a mortgage, car payments, etc. I think I would be in much worse shape. Also, if I was forced to stop studying, my part time job could become full time and I would have more than enough.

I do have health insurance though and my wife will as well, either because I have enough money to buy it through my university or because (depending on when she gets here) she will enroll as a student as well, where you get subsidized health insurance. Again, I do not really see how this would change in six years...right now, because I don't have too many obligations, I could buy some sort of health insurance that will prevent me from bankruptcy...in six years, perhaps not so likely if I lost my job.

They do recognize that cost of living varies somewhat by region...hence different requirements for Alaska and Hawaii, although other areas, like NYC, should be added.

In all probability, her being here will greatly benefit my bank account, because I will stop spending all my money on travel!

[JakeinVietnam 0]

I really don't see how my situation is going to be that much different in 6 years, other than a bigger salary. Right now, if I lose my funding, I really would not be in too bad of shape because I have very few obligations...I use public transportation and do not have a mortgage. In six years, when I have kids, a mortgage, car payments, etc. I think I would be in much worse shape. Also, if I was forced to stop studying, my part time job could become full time and I would have more than enough.

I do have health insurance though and my wife will as well, either because I have enough money to buy it through my university or because (depending on when she gets here) she will enroll as a student as well, where you get subsidized health insurance. Again, I do not really see how this would change in six years...right now, because I don't have too many obligations, I could buy some sort of health insurance that will prevent me from bankruptcy...in six years, perhaps not so likely if I lost my job.

They do recognize that cost of living varies somewhat by region...hence different requirements for Alaska and Hawaii, although other areas, like NYC, should be added.

In all probability, her being here will greatly benefit my bank account, because I will stop spending all my money on travel!

Here is why I feel that it does matter, who pays for these grants for you to go to college? I do as a tax payer, who will pay for her college? Probably the US government unless you make lots of money really fast, the last time I checked a 4 year degree online was about $45k, community colleges are much cheaper. Have you ever had to pay for family insurance? My friend did and he complained, and we had very good insurance, it was an extra $300 plus a month to add his wife and kid to it. I don't know your situation I do agree. But you are using programs that the Government is either giving you money for, or loans, and what do houses cost where you live, not dorm rooms, actual houses? What do electric bills cost? Gas bills? Food bills for a family? Internet, cable tv, phone (this is a must so she can call home to family) maybe your job pays well, and I am not saying it doesn't, the issue was never truly about YOU, but people in your situation, you might be fine, but there are many people out there that would not be fine, if you take all the gifts that you are given, and you are now forced to pay for everything, and if you only make 2/3 of the requirement, do you think you could really support your loved one? Remember not speaking of you, but in general, your situation that I know nothing about might be different, so try to stay open and look at the big picture, you might be a lucky one that could get by, but do you think that 100% of the people living in America only making 2/3 of this requirement would be okay? That is my point, not about you, yes it was posted in response to yours, and it used some of your examples, such as this one does. But as I said in another post, depending on where you live such things should take into affect since cost of living in different areas greatly differs. I also said that people should also be forced to show the capability of providing insurance, both life and health, as well as the possibility of a rainy day fund in the bank. Basically what I mean is maybe people should be judged on an individual basis across the board, take all your bills, and all your contingency plans in for them to see, and then compare with the average in the local area, this way if one person making 5 or 10k less than another person can still afford to support their loved one, by all be it bring them over, just as long as my tax dollars don't get spent paying for hosing or food stamps, or health care because someone skipped out on a $5000 bill from the local hospital.

[Indy90 21]

Here is why I feel that it does matter, who pays for these grants for you to go to college? I do as a tax payer, who will pay for her college? Probably the US government unless you make lots of money really fast, the last time I checked a 4 year degree online was about $45k, community colleges are much cheaper. Have you ever had to pay for family insurance? My friend did and he complained, and we had very good insurance, it was an extra $300 plus a month to add his wife and kid to it. I don't know your situation I do agree. But you are using programs that the Government is either giving you money for, or loans, and what do houses cost where you live, not dorm rooms, actual houses? What do electric bills cost? Gas bills? Food bills for a family? Internet, cable tv, phone (this is a must so she can call home to family) maybe your job pays well, and I am not saying it doesn't, the issue was never truly about YOU, but people in your situation, you might be fine, but there are many people out there that would not be fine, if you take all the gifts that you are given, and you are now forced to pay for everything, and if you only make 2/3 of the requirement, do you think you could really support your loved one? Remember not speaking of you, but in general, your situation that I know nothing about might be different, so try to stay open and look at the big picture, you might be a lucky one that could get by, but do you think that 100% of the people living in America only making 2/3 of this requirement would be okay? That is my point, not about you, yes it was posted in response to yours, and it used some of your examples, such as this one does. But as I said in another post, depending on where you live such things should take into affect since cost of living in different areas greatly differs. I also said that people should also be forced to show the capability of providing insurance, both life and health, as well as the possibility of a rainy day fund in the bank. Basically what I mean is maybe people should be judged on an individual basis across the board, take all your bills, and all your contingency plans in for them to see, and then compare with the average in the local area, this way if one person making 5 or 10k less than another person can still afford to support their loved one, by all be it bring them over, just as long as my tax dollars don't get spent paying for hosing or food stamps, or health care because someone skipped out on a $5000 bill from the local hospital.

Well, speaking personally, all of my housing expenses come to about $400 a month, including utilities and cable (I live in a pretty cheap area to live). I probably spend about $120 on food and maybe $100-$200 on misc. stuff, depending on the month. Right now, I am spending quite a bit more though between all of the visa fees/travel etc. My wife would not even be eligible to apply for means tested benefits, like food stamps, so you will not have to worry about subsidizing that.

But I realize that you are not talking about my personal situation, but rather about the situation in general. One thing that I have never seen and that I would like to see (if it exists) is what percentage of people who have to use a joint sponsor actually end of having to use some type of government support. I do agree that in certain cases it can be a problem, but it would be nice to know how big of an issue it really is.

Speaking personally, I think that much more fraud occurs amongst wealthier people than with "poor students" like me. What situation is more likely to produce fraud? A middle class divorcee who finds someone on the internet and only spends a few weeks with their future spouse (note, I am generalizing here and not talking about anyone person), or a student who has personally spent over a year physically with their wife (like me)? Who is more likely to cause the government more money? Whenever fraud needs to be investigated and deportation occurs, that is expensive.

Also about gifts...shouldn't people that have a mortgage or car loan or a government job be considered to be in the same situation as me? They are living with others money. And I mean, my grant (you have no idea if it is a private or public university) is probably much more secure than most jobs are right now.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Indy90

[Indy90 21]

I should add though that the details that I have said about my case are not completely true...they are more for the sake of hypotheticals.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I make a good 6 figure income from my full time job and my part time home based business. I live in a middle class neighborhood in Northern California, and have ordinary expenses for a middle class family - mortgage, car payment, various types of insurance, phone, cell, cable TV and internet, etc. I have six people living in my house. My mother and daughter make enough to pay their own personal bills, but I pay all of the household expenses. You'd think, though, with a 6 figure income that I would have plenty of extra cash. Not so. AOS fees for three people had a serious impact on my budget.

I know what it's like to support myself on substantially less money - near the poverty guidelines. I know because I've been there. I also know what it's like to add a dependent to your household when you're income is low. Don't underestimate how much this will strain your budget. There will be a lot of expected and unexpected expenses you'll have to deal with. If you have little or no savings, then start saving now. You're going to need it.