The "Obama Amnesty" --

[Used to be broken 147]

The "Obama Amnesty" -- Too Good to Be True

by Charles Kuck

As reported extensively over the last two weeks, and in a way that was grossly misunderstood by the average person, the Obama administration plans to issue a regulation that would address a long-standing problem in immigration law—a Catch 22 created by requiring the spouses and children of U.S. citizens who entered the country unlawfully to depart the U.S. before completing the processing of their application for lawful permanent residence. The trouble is that once they leave the country, they are subject to a three or ten year bar for unlawful presence and need a waiver to get back into the US earlier than the 3 or 10 year bar would allow. The new proposal would allow them to submit the waiver application to the USCIS in the United States and receive a decision before departing the U.S., thus reducing the time, anxiety, and sometime danger inherent in waiting abroad for a decision.

This Catch-22 is one of the most notorious problems in the immigration system and the regulatory change is long-overdue. Due to processing backlogs, uncertainty of outcomes and violence in cities with key U.S. consulates—such as in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico—the prospect of becoming a lawful permanent resident has become an uncertain and frustrating affair for some applicants. Recognizing this problem, which arises in part from regulation, is an example of USCIS acting responsibly to address a problem of its own regulatory making in an expedient and lawful way.

The too good to be true part is that there is no change in the law yet, and we have not yet seen the actual wording of the proposed change. The truth is this rule change will not open the doors for more immigrants, or provide relief for the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country without the necessary family and work relationships to obtain status. Therefore, calling it “amnesty” is nothing short of a lie. No one who was not already eligible for a waiver is now eligible. This proposed rule will not affect anyone new.

The other too good to be true part is that we can not expect this change to take affect before the end of the year. The Rulemaking Process is SLOW. Even if we get a proposed rule issued in the Spring (a big "if"), given the required comment period, and intense desire of USCIS's "culture of no" employees to slow down any real change that benefits immigrants, there is no conceivable way the change will happen before the election. And, if Obama loses in November, that will halt all pending changes in their tracks, and we will never see this common sense change take place.

What should you do? Do what you were doing. Do not make any changes in how you might have currently been processing for a waiver. Live your life. And, talk to an attorney if you are married to a US Citizen or permanent resident, or have Citizen or permanent resident parents. Perhaps you did not know that you already qualify for a waiver.

[ScramJet 35]

Principle is all wrong. You can't break into my house and expect kindness and sympathy in return, even if my daughter likes you. They expect some 'common sense'? Where was their common sense when they crossed borders illegally?

And what if they receive negative decision? Can we really expect someone who entered US illegally to go back to wherever the hell he/she came from? NO they will simply continue their illegal business as usual. Mah

[Susita 175]

Where was their common sense when they crossed borders illegally?

Quite a bit of the people who apply for this waiver did, in fact, enter the country legally and therefore see this pathway as available to them. Some may have Visas where a renewal was denied, or some may have had temporary protective status that has expired or will shortly.

Just sayin', not every undocumented immigrant is a border-hopper.

[ScramJet 35]

Quite a bit of the people who apply for this waiver did, in fact, enter the country legally and therefore see this pathway as available to them. Some may have Visas where a renewal was denied, or some may have had temporary protective status that has expired or will shortly.

Just sayin', not every undocumented immigrant is a border-hopper.

Maybe they aren't all 'border-hoppers'(very cute, I see some fuzzy rabbits jumping over my border), but they are all here illegally which makes them illegal immigrants, not undocumented. Are we afraid to hurt their feelings now?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

here we go again

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Principle is all wrong. You can't break into my house and expect kindness and sympathy in return, even if my daughter likes you. They expect some 'common sense'? Where was their common sense when they crossed borders illegally?

And what if they receive negative decision? Can we really expect someone who entered US illegally to go back to wherever the hell he/she came from? NO they will simply continue their illegal business as usual. Mah

[Used to be broken 147]

Principle is all wrong. You can't break into my house and expect kindness and sympathy in return, even if my daughter likes you. They expect some 'common sense'? Where was their common sense when they crossed borders illegally?

And what if they receive negative decision? Can we really expect someone who entered US illegally to go back to wherever the hell he/she came from? NO they will simply continue their illegal business as usual. Mah

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that alleviating hardship on US Citizen is a wrong headed principle. Neither is it wrong to save Taxpayers money who deserve kindness and sympathy since they foot the bill for USCIS offices to exist all over the world. The basis of the proposed rule change is family unity for members of US Citizens households, going against that principle is wrong IMHO. As was mentioned not all needing waivers

were a party to an EWI.

As for the head in the sand approach certainly the government is on better footing knowing where the alien is, who he/she is married to and

where they work etc, etc, if they wish to initiate removal proceedings post denial. More families will come forward and try to comply with

legalization, get on the tax rolls completely and more families who are denied will be separated and more aliens removed than before which seems to

be in keeping with idea you prefer which is them going back to where they came from.

So if you are "for" more broken families containing US Citizens this proposal should appeal to you. In the end that is the down side no one is mentioning, it will be much harder to prove hardship without a family separation since the Hardship standard has not been changed.