Visa overstays get amnesty... They break the law, and then get to stay...

[B & G 200]

It's not any kind of mentality, it's about fairness. Why should people from certain countries be allowed to abuse the system, while others can not.

It allows a group of people who are from certain countries to abuse the system. Coming to the U.S. on on a VWP or B-1/B-2 with the intent of immigrating is illegal. How do you prove intent? Almost impossible.

I don't understand how making things fair for everyone is considered "petty" Everyone should have to go though the same process regardless of which country they happen to be born in. I call that fair.

ETA: Just to be clear coming to the U.S. on a VWB or a tourist visa with the intent on immigrating is considered visa fraud. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. Tough to prove intent, which makes it ripe for abuse.

My very first post, I mentioned the fact that I was not talking about people that at POE have the intent to migrate and lie. Just be clear about that too.

And there are so many things unfair about the way things are handle by the US government that allowing someone from the VWP to adjust in the US is at the bottom. How about how unfair it is that 20% of American children live under the poverty line? Thats unfair. Not that someone will get to live with their spouse 4 months earlier because they are adjusting from a VWP than a K1 filer waiting 6-7months for a visa approval.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The time it takes most consulates to process the visa applications are pretty insignificant compared to the time it takes to get the underlying petition approved. Unless the applicant is put under AP. I'm not begrudging anyone anything, but I'd like it to be as fair as possible.

Your attitude towards this subject is very Republican (I got mine, screw everybody else) You should turn in your DNC membership card at the nearest office as soon as possible.

Where did I ever say anything like that? There were many couples back in the day that got to their finish line much faster than my wife and I did. And I managed to be happy for them. Others that happened to have a longer path than my wife and I managed to be happy for us when we crossed the finish line. That is how this community once was. Ah, the good old days...

[Karee 4,190]

My very first post, I mentioned the fact that I was not talking about people that at POE have the intent to migrate and lie. Just be clear about that too.

And there are so many things unfair about the way things are handle by the US government that allowing someone from the VWP to adjust in the US is at the bottom. How about how unfair it is that 20% of American children live under the poverty line? Thats unfair. Not that someone will get to live with their spouse 4 months earlier because they are adjusting from a VWP than a K1 filer waiting 6-7months for a visa approval.

If you want to start a topic about children living under the poverty line, see below:

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That would require a constitutional amendment.

Why? Can't it just be ignored or overruled like everything else? And I'm sure MBD can explain how the Constitution doesn't really mean that anyone born here is a citizen just like he does about the Second Amendment not really giving the people the right to bear arms.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Frankly, the math is not in our favor.

There's about a million of us a year being persecuted by the legal immigration nightmare. There's 12 million awaiting amnesty. Multiply that divide by three because for every one of them they have a couple of people that want to see them get green cards because they employ them, are their great friend or romantic interest, etc.

We do too, but in terms of sheer political numbers its like 36 million on their team and 3 million on our team. Doing what's right is unthinkable politically. Listen to legal immigrants? What for?

All legal immigrants should be onboard, not just those going through the process. This is a slap in the face to all legal immigrants.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Fair enough. I didn't mean to generalize.

You did too.

[UncleBeer 244]

All legal immigrants should be onboard, not just those going through the process. This is a slap in the face to all legal immigrants.

Spooky, I grant you the rare +1.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

And that is at the crux of the immigration issue. There isn't a one-size-fits-all because each case is different from the next. We've come full circle: We can't just deport all these children at the border en masse, nor can we presume to believe that deporting 12million persons would resolve the problem, legally. Each one has a story and each one a different predicament. It is amazing that we've come to such realization with only a few exchanges. Why can't our politicians do the same, since it is the reason we hired them in the first place?

Because the politicians don't want to. Each side has it's own selfish reasons and only cares about what's best for their party and ** what's best for the country.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Your attitude towards this subject is very Republican (I got mine, screw everybody else) You should turn in your DNC membership card at the nearest office as soon as possible.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It's not any kind of mentality, it's about fairness. Why should people from certain countries be allowed to abuse the system, while others can not.

Exactly. All countries should be able to abuse the system. The US was built on the principles of fairness and equality for all.

[UncleBeer 244]

Because the politicians don't want to. Each side has it's own selfish reasons and only cares about what's best for their party and ** what's best for the country.

Only ONE politician is brazenly breaking current immigration laws and encouraging others to do the same. The preznit.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Only ONE politician is brazenly breaking current immigration laws and encouraging others to do the same. The preznit.

You keep the wool over your eyes and blame one person and one party.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why? Can't it just be ignored or overruled like everything else? And I'm sure MBD can explain how the Constitution doesn't really mean that anyone born here is a citizen just like he does about the Second Amendment not really giving the people the right to bear arms.

Becasue over the course of history, the concept of citizenship has not changed, whereas the definition of 'arms' has. However, the 2nd amendment should be discussion in its own right, deserving of its own thread.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

What is anyone going to do? What is your solution? We keep talking about this on VJ but are doing nothing in our daily lives, or at least, you guys are not. I have submitted my writ to the courts. But we are only 2 people. The rest of USCs who are still going through this process or are finished should get together and let their voices be heard. We do not need to rain on someone else's parade but we need to let it be know that we should still be the priority here, not people who are doing it illegally or non-USC. People in another forum have put together some key points of discussion. Why have we not done the same?

Look at what they have done and I quote this.

"Here are some key points, questions and demands we would like to bring to your attention:

- USCIS states that spouses of US Citizens do not need to wait in line for a visa to become available and that family unity is a priority

- If US Citizens are at the top of the priority for the US government agencies why are we being set aside while ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM is being glorified and allowed special treatment?

- US Citizens are put through stress and depression and as a result poor mental and physical health since the DACA program has slowed down processing times even more than in previous years

- Thousands of dollars A DAY is being spent on ILLEGAL immigrants to be able to stay in the USA when we have to prove we can support ourselves with our own hard earned money and we are happy to do so

- When calling the phone numbers we are provided for assistance during this process we get NO understanding and certainly very inconsistent answers, if any

- We need to know why our government is spending so much money and resources on ILLEGAL immigrants and warfare and can’t provide enough employees to control a backlog for spouses of US Citizens to process their paperwork?

- Certain processing time frames at NVC and USCIS are given and not abided by and we demand for a change in this

- We demand for processing times to be controlled and fair at ALL steps of this process

- We demand to be the priority as we are choosing to do what is right and legal

- We demand to be treated more humanely

- We demand for a change in processing times for Immigrant Visas IMMEDIATELY

We want to know why we are being punished.

We need to know that we are not invisible.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO BE IGNORED"

[Karee 4,190]

Becasue over the course of history, the concept of citizenship has not changed,

I disagree.

Legislative History of Naturalization

Before applying for naturalization, most immigrants must have spent 5 years as a permanent resident in the United States. How did we come up with the "5-year rule"? The answer is found in the legislative history of immigration to the U.S.

Naturalization requirements are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the basic body of immigration law. Before the INA was created in 1952, a variety of statutes governed immigration law. Let's take a look at the major changes to naturalization requirements.

• Before the Act of March 26, 1790, naturalization was under the control of the individual states. This first federal activity established a uniform rule for naturalization by setting the residence requirement at 2 years.

• The Act of January 29, 1795 repealed the 1790 act, and raised the residence requirement to 5 years. It also required, for the first time, a declaration of intention to seek citizenship at least 3 years before naturalization.

• Along came the Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798 - a time when political tensions were running high and there was an increased desire to guard the nation. The residence requirement for naturalization was raised from 5 years to 14 years.

• Four years later, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802, which reduced the residence period for naturalization from 14 years back to 5 years.

• The Act of May 26, 1824 made it easier for the naturalization of certain aliens who had entered the U.S. as minors, by setting a 2-year instead of a 3-year interval between declaration of intention and admission to citizenship.

• The Act of May 11, 1922 was an extension of a 1921 Act, and included an amendment that changed the residency requirement in a Western Hemisphere country from 1 year to the current requirement of 5 years.

• Noncitizens who had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during the Vietnam conflict or in other periods of military hostilities, were recognized in the Act of October 24, 1968. This act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, providing an expedited naturalization process for these military members.

• The 2-year continuous U.S. residence requirement was done away with in the Act of October 5, 1978.

• A major overhaul of immigration law occurred with the Immigration Act of November 29, 1990. In it, state residency requirements were reduced to the current requirement of 3 months.

Source: http://immigration.about.com/od/usimmigrationhistory/a/Natur_History.htm