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

[Karee 4,190]

I think many times a 6 month-1 year wait is a good thing

Yeah I suppose if you found the girl on asianbride.com and met once, then maybe it can be a good thing. However, if you've had a life together in a foreign country, then had to be separated for a year while waiting for the paperwork to finish, not so much. Another reason they should do away with the K-1. Either make the commitment and get married in the foreign country, or no visa. This meeting once in the last two years thing isn't a basis for any kind of lasting relationship.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Yeah I suppose if you found the girl on asianbride.com and met once, then maybe it can be a good thing. However, if you've had a life together in a foreign country, then had to be separated for a year while waiting for the paperwork to finish, not so much. Another reason they should do away with the K-1. Either make the commitment and get married in the foreign country, or no visa. This meeting once in the last two years thing isn't a basis for any kind of lasting relationship.

Agree!

My husband and I lived in two separate countries together before we had to separate for this stupid process and we are still in AP after all that time we spent together. 6 months - 1 year for who? We did more than that sh!t already!

[Karee 4,190]

Ok, I didn't wade through all the drama, so forgive me if this has been said.

What you actually need to do is get pregnant, then sneak your spouse/fiancee across the border and THEN you might get amnesty. Fancy that!

What do you call a case of people breaking a broken law? The problem (or at least part of it) stems from the fact that all children born in the US are automatically US citizens, just for being born on US soil. I propose amending that to "born on US soil AND AT LEAST one parent is LEGAL"... LPR or citizen, I'd say. That might curb it for the future, but what do we do with all the ones already here? I don't know, I'm not opening THAT can of worms!

There's a small detail called the 14th amendment to the constitution. It states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see that changing.

[SaharaSunset 165]

There are two distinct streams of criticism of the current situation on display here:

1) The current system is flawed and needs to be fixed (insert posited (in)complete solution, with political tinge); and

2) WHY ARE THEY GETTING THEIRS WHEN I HAD TO WAITTTTTTT

Illegal and legal immigration are apples and oranges. Anyone who says he or she should have had their beloved just traipse across the border is wishing that that loved one should live a life in the shadows, without the privileges and protections of legal residency. Just so you could have them here months sooner. Really? Is it worth that much to you to have their physical presence sooner that you would jeopardize their status, and subject them to a ban?

Questions.

The moral high ground you stand on may be a bit out of reach for some us....but, I suppose we have to try. For starters, I'm not sure how the immigration "flaws" could be solved without a political "tinge"...kinda how the whole America, laws, government thing works.

And yes, I get that life a a legal immigrant is preferred - of course. But sadly, few privileges and protections are being denied - beyong the vague threat of being deported. But if people actually feared that, we wouldn't have millions of illegals. And when illegal immigrants sign their kids up for school, or head to the hospital to give birth for free, they are hardly "living in the shadows." I know, I'm sure there are heart tugging tales about "living in the shadows"....but, you made your bed right...so lie in it.

Its not apples and oranges. Thats like saying there should be a different application of laws for people who have already committed a crime...I mean, the murder has been done already, so why bother filling up the jails...too messy...too expensive...too complicated. If a law is made, then it must apply to all equally. Again, kinda the whole America, constitution, rule of law thing we supposedly have going on here. Illegal immigration is illegal. End of story. Solution: enforce the law. Expensive? Yeah. Could take decades? Yeah. People gonna get hurt? Sure. But a country where laws can suddenly not apply to some...scary. America continues to work hard to reach that ideal, and I don't think there is any justification for taking such a troubling leap backwards.

We can all be apples. But in order to to have a happy healthy orchard, we need to follow the laws of growing apples. We can't expect a stray apple, tossed over the fence to bloom and blossom in the orchard. Clear out the stray apples, and send them through the correct processes so they can grow and live their lives "out of the shadows." But don't expect amnesty to turn all those stray apples into a blloming orchard. I think you are missing the point.

Edited July 30, 2014 by SaharaSunset

[UncleBeer 244]

The government is doing it exactly backwards: making illegal immigration vastly easier than legal.

It ain't "the government" doing this; give blame where it's due. "The government" has laws to preclude this kind of invasion; one arrogant ideologue has simply decided to ignore them, sending the signal that all are welcome. Congress has roundly rejected the preznit's "immigration reform" proposals on more than one occasion, and the American people are clearly not in favor of them either.

The White House is encouraging talk of impeachment so as to 'whip up' the liberal base before the midterms. I say wait 'til after the midterms (when there's a pretty good chance of Republican majorities in both houses, then impeach, then undo as much damage as possible.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Its not your taxes, its your application fees that pay for the process. You'll remember that USCIS was still processing applications during the Government shutdown.

But with marginally less employees, because they were reduced in the number of hours they could work per week. So things slowed way down. Plus, there were no new hires for many months, so if the number of applicants increased, there were no new employees to keep up with increased demand.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know as well as I do that the reason for the backlog back then had nothing to with USCIS. It had to do with NVC. NVC was taking years to complete cases for immigrant visas, while just stamping the K-3 and forwarding it on to the consulate. Seems you've been away from the process for awhile and forgot how it works.

Below is a screen shot of IR-1/CR-1 stats from January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2006. As you can clearly see the backlog was NVC NOT USCIS.

I haven't forgotten a thing. I do remember very well that it took almost 2 years to get my I-130 approved (filed Nov 2003, approved Aug 2005). I remember very well that lifting conditions took a year. The NVC was not involved in either of those processes. I also remember that the average time for naturalization back in the days when I went through it was about 2 years. Wait times spanned from 18-30 months. I knew many people that have been in the waiting queue for that long after filing their N-400. There's no NVC involved there either. USCIS processes took very long back in the day. I can't quite understand why married couples who have the opportunity to have their spouse here on a K3 to wait the processing times out together sit there and b!tch about how long the CR1 takes instead of filing for that damn K3 and get their spouse home.

[Karee 4,190]

I haven't forgotten a thing. I do remember very well that it took almost 2 years to get my I-130 approved (filed Nov 2003, approved Aug 2005). I remember very well that lifting conditions took a year. The NVC was not involved in either of those processes. I also remember that the average time for naturalization back in the days when I went through it was about 2 years. Wait times spanned from 18-30 months. I knew many people that have been in the waiting queue for that long after filing their N-400. There's no NVC involved there either. USCIS processes took very long back in the day. I can't quite understand why married couples who have the opportunity to have their spouse here on a K3 to wait the processing times out together sit there and b!tch about how long the CR1 takes instead of filing for that damn K3 and get their spouse home.

I guess those timelines I searched on are all B.S. then. because it wasn't taking 2 years to get any I-130s approved based on the information here back then. The K-3 was implemented specifically because it was taking NVC so long to do their part and forward the immigrant visa application to the consulate in the foreign country.

As far as the K-3, it pretty much doesn't exist any longer, and hasn't for years.

Based on your above post it's quite clear that you have no idea how the process works, despite having all of those hearts next to your name. Maybe spend a little time visiting other parts of VJ.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Agree!

My husband and I lived in two separate countries together before we had to separate for this stupid process and we are still in AP after all that time we spent together. 6 months - 1 year for who? We did more than that sh!t already!

You sure you don't drink ?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

You sure you don't drink ?

Let me rephrase this for you buddy.

We have lived in 2 (two) countries abroad together.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess those timelines I searched on are all B.S. then. because it wasn't taking 2 years to get any I-130s approved based on the information here back then. The K-3 was implemented specifically because it was taking NVC so long to do their part and forward the immigrant visa application to the consulate in the foreign country.

As far as the K-3, it pretty much doesn't exist any longer, and hasn't for years.

Based on your above post it's quite clear that you have no idea how the process works, despite having all of those hearts next to your name. Maybe spend a little time visiting other parts of VJ.

The K3 doesn't exist anymore? Someone better tell DOS and DHS about that. The visa is no longer relevant because the excruciating wait times for spouses have been brought down to where the K3 wait used to be but the visa itself stll very much exists judging from the DOS and DHS.

Oh, and that timeline search is that of a rather small universe and not exactly representative of the entire family immigration population. It's like taking online polls and trying to read lerger trends out of them. Doesn't work.

[Karee 4,190]

The K3 doesn't exist anymore? Someone better tell DOS and DHS about that. The visa is no longer relevant because the excruciating wait times for spouses have been brought down to where the K3 wait used to be but the visa itself stll very much exists judging from the DOS and DHS.

Oh, and that timeline search is that of a rather small universe and not exactly representative of the entire family immigration population. It's like taking online polls and trying to read lerger trends out of them. Doesn't work.

In order for a K-3 to be issued at the foreign consulate, NVC MUST forward the approved I-129F petition to the consulate. For the last 5 YEARS or so, USCIS forwards the approved I-129F and I-130 to NVC. NVC then closes the I-129F (K-3) because it has an approved I-130. The rule states when an immigrant visa (IR-1/CR-1) is available, the need for the non-immigrant visa (K-3) no longer exists. So if the foreign consulate never gets the approved I-129F from NVC, there's no K-3 they can issue. Again, you would know all of this if you spent a little time elsewhere on this site, instead of just coming to CHEST and trumpeting then DNC talking points 24/7.

As to the timeline search, it clearly shows that the delay was with NVC back then, not USCIS.

If you don't know the facts, it's best not to comment. It makes you look foolish.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The K3 doesn't exist anymore? Someone better tell DOS and DHS about that. The visa is no longer relevant because the excruciating wait times for spouses have been brought down to where the K3 wait used to be but the visa itself stll very much exists judging from the DOS and DHS.

Oh, and that timeline search is that of a rather small universe and not exactly representative of the entire family immigration population. It's like taking online polls and trying to read lerger trends out of them. Doesn't work.

Translation -In other words you proved me wrong, so the source does not count.

I think that is B

[2ndMessiah 184]

I have continued to read with interest this thread and have noted that some people would like the laws of the country enforced . I agree but lets look at part of the law,. E-verify, a way for employers to verify the legitimacy of future employees right to work and a SSN. Why make such an useful tool voluntary?

Only a few states have made it mandatory with two especially interesting, California and Illinois. While the rest of the US can take it or leave it.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html

Why does this great country seem to want to pass laws that are so neutered that they are functionally pointless?

I can only imagine it is because most are created by committee with big business and money having more of say that "we the people"

Edited July 30, 2014 by 2ndMessiah

[Karee 4,190]

I have continued to read with interest this thread and have noted that some people would like the laws of the country enforced . I agree but lets look at part of the law,. E-verify, a way for employers to verify the legitimacy of future employees right to work and a SSN. Why make such an useful tool voluntary?

Only a few states have made it mandatory with two especially interesting, California and Illinois. While the rest of the US can take it or leave it.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html

Why does this great country seem to want to pass laws that are so neutered that they are functionally pointless?

I can only imagine it is because most are created by committee with big business and money having more of say that "we the people"

One of the issues with E-Verify is that companies are not allowed to use it for current employees. It's really a moot point now anyway, because it appears the current occupant of the White House is going to start handing out immigration benefits whether you went through the process legally or not. They might as well discontinue E-Verify.