Shout Out Loud Or It Will Get Much WORSE

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You go right ahead and believe it is your right to bring a foreign spouse to the US. Little kids believe in Santa. Both beliefs are grounded on the same plot of reality.

If it is a privilege and not a right, then that means that it can also be denied for reasons such as a quota is full. The spouse does not have an education or is literate. There background is not spotless or maybe they must pass a certain test. These things go along with qualifying to be granted that privilege. Driving is a privilege and if you get enough negative points they take that privilege away.

A right is much different and cannot be taken away that easily. Of course we all know that no one would be denied spousal immigration based on any of the above reasons. That is because it is a right, and the only reason that a spouse can be denied is for serious grievances and violations for lack of a better word that merit the denial of that right.

Think of one reason that bringing a spouse to the states can be denied and then think how serious that reason has to be before being denied your right to bring a foreign spouse to the US.

Please don't confuse privileges with rights. We always say "we have the right to vote, so we exercise that privilege." We all have the right to bring a foreign spouse to the US, and we exercise that undeniable right and privilege when we use the immigration process. The immigration process cannot hinder that right, but we must play by their rules to enjoy that privilege.

This is not a play on words, but it is important that people realize it is a right. When you think it is a privilege and the government is doing you a favor is the time that you will start to tolerate their problems with the system and say you just need more patience, turning their shortcomings in to yourself and accepting second best. In the US you don’t need to accept second best, especially when you are the customer.

There could be quotas placed on family immigration anytime the US government wants to do it. It is not guaranteed. The only reason there are no quotas on spousal immigration is because the INA says so. The INA is a law. It is not part of the US Constitution. Laws can be changed at anytime.

If you don't believe me, start reading some of the news articles about immigration reform. Or better yet, read deeper to blogs of organizations that urge the government to limit ALL types of immigration.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Rebecca Jo

[wshc 46]

There could be quotas placed on family immigration anytime the US government wants to do it. It is not guaranteed. The only reason there are no quotas on spousal immigration is because the INA says so. The INA is a law. It is not part of the US Constitution. Laws can be changed at anytime.

If you don't believe me, start reading some of the news articles about immigration reform. Or better yet, read deeper to blogs of organizations that urge the government to limit ALL types of immigration.

They could also lock up everyone with a certain hair color if the law passed using your logic. If you are worried about them ever putting a limit on family immigration, especially spousal immigration, just don't forget, it is a right and you will feel at ease. As screwed up as the system is, the US government is still good and does not desire to mess with its citizens that much.

[Fandango 1,439]

You go right ahead and believe it is your right to bring a foreign spouse to the US. Little kids believe in Santa. Both beliefs are grounded on the same plot of reality.

If it is a privilege and not a right, then that means that it can also be denied for reasons such as a quota is full. The spouse does not have an education or is literate. There background is not spotless or maybe they must pass a certain test. These things go along with qualifying to be granted that privilege. Driving is a privilege and if you get enough negative points they take that privilege away.

A right is much different and cannot be taken away that easily. Of course we all know that no one would be denied spousal immigration based on any of the above reasons. That is because it is a right, and the only reason that a spouse can be denied is for serious grievances and violations for lack of a better word that merit the denial of that right.

Think of one reason that bringing a spouse to the states can be denied and then think how serious that reason has to be before being denied your right to bring a foreign spouse to the US.

Please don't confuse privileges with rights. We always say "we have the right to vote, so we exercise that privilege." We all have the right to bring a foreign spouse to the US, and we exercise that undeniable right and privilege when we use the immigration process. The immigration process cannot hinder that right, but we must play by their rules to enjoy that privilege.

This is not a play on words, but it is important that people realize it is a right. When you think it is a privilege and the government is doing you a favor is the time that you will start to tolerate their problems with the system and say you just need more patience, turning their shortcomings in to yourself and accepting second best. In the US you don’t need to accept second best, especially when you are the customer.

Good Lord, it's not a RIGHT. Marry a terrorist and try to get him/her here. See how that works.

[wshc 46]

Good Lord, it's not a RIGHT. Marry a terrorist and try to get him/her here. See how that works.

The quote cleanly states the Government can and should do background checks and of course there are limits to all rights, just as one poster noted, the right of free speech does not give you the right to yell "fire!!" in a crowded theatre. Just because it is a right it does not mean that the USCIS needs to allow all spousal immigration petitions no matter what. The right of spousal immigration is limited to only one spouse and a petition would not be considered if the spouse under a certain age, just as two examples.

Please read the comment, understand it and use common sense before you criticize something. Otherwise your counter comment has limited intellectual value.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The difference between a right and a privilege, from a legal perspective, is that a privilege is presumed not to exist unless granted by law, while a right is presumed to exist unless revoked by law. From a practical perspective, this means you don't have a privilege until you've asked for it and it's been granted or recognized, while you automatically have a right unless it's specifically been taken away from you.

You have the right to free speech, guaranteed in the US Constitution. You don't have to ask for this right to be granted. If you want to make your speech on my doorstep then that's a privilege you have to ask me for.

You have the right under the Constitution to live, to be free, and to own property. You don't need to ask for these rights to be granted, and the government needs to convince a judge that they have just cause before they can take any of these rights away from you.

If a US citizen had a right to allow their spouse or fiancee to immigrate then you wouldn't need to ask the government's permission for this. You should be able to just bring her here and she'd be allowed to stay unless the government intervened at some point and tried to take that right away from you. It doesn't work that way.

First, you have to submit a petition and prove you're eligible to submit that petition. If the government doesn't find any reason under the law to deny it, then they'll approve the petition. Next, your spouse or fiancee has to submit an application and interview for a visa. If the government doesn't find any reason to deny it, then they'll issue a visa. Depending on the type of visa involved, you may need to ask the government for permission to get a green card. Depending on how long you've been married, you may need to ask the government for permission to lift the conditions on that green card in two years. If your spouse wants to become a US citizen then they have to wait until they're eligible to apply, submit an application and take a test, and if the government doesn't find any reason to deny then they'll grant them citizenship.

The point is that all through this process you will be asking the US government for permission to complete the next step. If, at any point, they find a reason to say "no" then permission will be denied. In most cases, you won't even have a path to appeal the decision.

I don't see any way this could qualify as a right.

Curiously enough, you also have to ask the state government for permission to marry by applying for a marriage license. If they find you're not eligible then they'll say "no".

Edited January 26, 2011 by JimVaPhuong

[wshc 46]

Excellent point Jim, and I am sure you are correct. - (Avoiding the word right so as not to confuse things ) -

As a counter example however - Driving is often considered a privilege, however it could also be considered a right, you just must qualify to exercise that right. You must first show your eligibility in both physical areas (eye sight) and age. You must pass a written test and then a driving test. Before the driving test the automobile you are going to drive must be insured (at least in my state) and the instructor will check for safety. You may have to prove your legal eligibility to receive a drivers license (citizenship eligibility maybe depending upon the state.) If all of these criteria are met, then the state cannot deny the issuance of a driver's license.

When I describe it this way it sounds like a right with some strings attached. I never thought of driving as a right however, but in a way it is. (Just like some people consider Health Care a right.)

So legally I am sure you are correct about spousal immigration being a privilege. (From a redneck point of view, it is a right and the revenuers ain't never gonna mess with it! )

Fun topic - like if a tree falls in a forest.......

Edited January 26, 2011 by wshc

[Bob g 11]

Listening to our President's speech the other night, it seems the President is more interested in the Illegal school children of Illegal Aliens, and wealthy Illegal College Kids, than deporting illegals.

[villaspurs 65]

Listening to our President's speech the other night, it seems the President is more interested in the Illegal school children of Illegal Aliens, and wealthy Illegal College Kids, than deporting illegals.

Deportations have hit record levels under Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536301580024586.html

[Rictodd 0]

Just a couple of comments:

1) The slave analogy was out of line. Slaves were considered chattle (property), not people. A closer analogy might be indentured servants, who could buy thier freedom and then petition for immigrant status

2) The US is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. We Democratically elect officials to represent us, not vote on every decision of the government.

3) I haven't heard much about the quota system for immigration, perhaps this is in play also. Many more allowed from some countries than others.

4) Sounds like the "denials" for bring loved ones here may be more of a Consulate critique, than a USCIS critique. I thought delays at the USICIS was the topic.

5) Moving to another country might be a posssibility for some...But those other countries may have thier own criteria for entry, such as showing you won't be a burden on that country.

Just some high level thoughts on these posts. Many of them, lots with good points and a few mis-informed, but I'm sure well intentioned.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

3) I haven't heard much about the quota system for immigration, perhaps this is in play also. Many more allowed from some countries than others.

Agree with everything you said, especially about the US being a Democratic Republic. I've gotten into some heated arguments with people who didn't understand the difference.

Regarding the above, you can read about the quota system for family based visas in the Visa Bulletin, published each month by Department of State. Here's a link to the February bulletin:

http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5228.html

No single country may receive more than 7% of the total number of available visas each year. This is why the delays are generally longer for China, the Dominican Republic, India, Mexico, and the Philippines. These countries are "oversubscribed", which means the number of people waiting in line is more than 7% of the total, so they have to wait longer.

The quota system doesn't apply to anyone who qualifies as an immediate relative of a US citizen. This basically means a spouse, unmarried child under 21 years old, or a parent.

[Bob g 11]

Deportations have hit record levels under Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536301580024586.html

OK, 393,000 gets deported, only 19,000,000 to go, but with 1,000,000 illegals coming in each year, nothing will get better.......

[villaspurs 65]

OK, 393,000 gets deported, only 19,000,000 to go, but with 1,000,000 illegals coming in each year, nothing will get better.......

From everything I've seen, the latest estimates are 11,000,000 illegal immigrants total in the U.S. are around 11 million, so nowhere near the 19,000,000 you cited. I'm also not sure where you got the idea that 1 million illegal immigrants come in each year. Since there are 11 million total, that seems unlikely.

[wshc 46]

From everything I've seen, the latest estimates are 11,000,000 illegal immigrants total in the U.S. are around 11 million, so nowhere near the 19,000,000 you cited. I'm also not sure where you got the idea that 1 million illegal immigrants come in each year. Since there are 11 million total, that seems unlikely.

The point is even 2 are too many. Especially if only one is deported.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

From everything I've seen, the latest estimates are 11,000,000 illegal immigrants total in the U.S. are around 11 million, so nowhere near the 19,000,000 you cited. I'm also not sure where you got the idea that 1 million illegal immigrants come in each year. Since there are 11 million total, that seems unlikely.

Nobody knows for certain how many illegal immigrants are in the US. Most of them enter without inspection, so there's no official record of their presence.

The 2000 US Census put the estimate at 8.7 million, but they admit it's probably grossly underestimated because many illegals are afraid to respond to the census. In 2003, USCIS estimated the total was around 7 million, and that it was growing by 1/2 million per year, which would put their current estimate around 10.5 million. The Pew Research Center puts the estimate between 11.5 and 12 million, based on US Bureau of Labor surveys. Bear Stearns made an estimate based on school enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossing data from CBP, and housing permits, and concluded that the US Census numbers accounted for only about 1/2 the total.

So the total is probably somewhere between 10 and 20 million. This would put the growth rate around 1/2 million per year if USCIS estimates are correct, or about 1 million per year if Bear Stearns estimates are correct. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.