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

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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"

Mandatory in GA for more than 10 employees. It is a violation of federal law to use verify to determine status of employees already employed .

[2ndMessiah 184]

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.

Can you point me to where it says it cant be used for current employees. Its not that I doubt your belief in this, I like verifiable sources. A lot of things are said by people that cannot be verified but is passed on parrot fashion and it becomes the defacto truth.

The point I was making is that people are asking for the laws to be implemented. Well lets start doing it. But from the link I posted some states DONT appear to want to stop illegal immigration and illegal working.

Maybe the law could be changed to allow employers to check their staff after the fact. For a country that is all about employer and business rights and light on employee rights, I would have thought this would have been a no brainer.

I am more interested in ideas than currently pointing the finger and blaming the current incumbent (no matter their left and right wing views) for this countries woes.

Edited July 30, 2014 by 2ndMessiah

[UncleBeer 244]

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

It's already understood by most that hiring illegals is, well, illegal, regardless of whether E-verify has been ratified in a particular state or not.

Americans by and large respect the rule of law, and don't have to be told by legislative fiat what's right and wrong. The preznit's example though of ignoring laws he doesn't like, making edicts, etc. may quite possibly have eroded many Americans respect for old fashioned "sense of fair play", as the executive will just impose his will regardless.

[Karee 4,191]

Can you point me to where it says it cant be used for current employees. Its not that I doubt your belief in this, I like verifiable sources. A lot of things are said by people that cannot be verified but is passed on parrot fashion and it becomes the defacto truth.

The point I was making is that people are asking for the laws to be implemented. Well lets start doing it. But from the link I posted some states DONT appear to want to stop illegal immigration and illegal working.

Maybe the law could be changed to allow employers to check their staff after the fact. For a country that is all about employer and business rights and light on employee rights, I would have thought this would have been a no brainer.

I am more interested in ideas than currently pointing the finger and blaming the current incumbent (no matter their left and right wing views) for this countries woes.

http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/questions-and-answers/may-i-verify-existing-employee-e-verify

[2ndMessiah 184]

It's already understood by most that hiring illegals is, well, illegal, regardless of whether E-verify has been ratified in a particular state or not.

Americans by and large respect the rule of law, and don't have to be told by legislative fiat what's right and wrong. The preznit's example though of ignoring laws he doesn't like, making edicts, etc. may quite possibly have eroded many Americans respect for old fashioned "sense of fair play", as the executive will just impose his will regardless.

But it is easy to respect the rule of law, when the laws themselves are very neutered.

Obviously a lot of Americans do not respect the rule of law when they can employee people illegally and get away with it. We are very good and justifying things to ourselves. Say I employee Joe. I know he is illegal but he appears to be a good person and he needs work to feed his family. I can pay him less than a US citizen or LPR and I dont have to pay taxes in relation to him. means He gets help, I get work done, I make more money and no one is hurt.

My business improves, I need another employee and Joe has a friend Peter, also illegal, who needs work.

Well I have already employed Joe so why not Peter. And so on and so forth.

Sometimes Laws need to be black and white.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Can you point me to where it says it cant be used for current employees. Its not that I doubt your belief in this, I like verifiable sources. A lot of things are said by people that cannot be verified but is passed on parrot fashion and it becomes the defacto truth.

The point I was making is that people are asking for the laws to be implemented. Well lets start doing it. But from the link I posted some states DONT appear to want to stop illegal immigration and illegal working.

Maybe the law could be changed to allow employers to check their staff after the fact. For a country that is all about employer and business rights and light on employee rights, I would have thought this would have been a no brainer.

I am more interested in ideas than currently pointing the finger and blaming the current incumbent (no matter their left and right wing views) for this countries woes.

I was the Plant manager of a company and set up E-verify for the HR department. He is korrect. It made it perfectly clear when i set it up, that it is a violation of law to use it for already hired employees, and for screening job applicants

[2ndMessiah 184]

http://www.uscis.gov/e-verify/questions-and-answers/may-i-verify-existing-employee-e-verify

Thats great. Thankyou.

I was the Plant manager of a company and set up E-verify for the HR department. He is korrect. It made it perfectly clear when i set it up, that it is a violation of law to use it for already hired employees, and for screening job applicants

I must learn how to do multiple quotes.

Thanks for the clarification.

[UncleBeer 244]

But it is easy to respect the rule of law, when the laws themselves are very neutered.

Well, only if we're talking about good people who have some understanding of right and wrong. Those who have to be legislated into behaving: they're lost causes.

My Grandpa used to say: "Locks are for honest people". Cuz that's all they keep out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

All fine and dandy - aside from the personal attacks you attempt here. You should know that it matters not to the German oak when a hog rubs against it. But hey, none of what you say here refutes anything that I have said. It does refute, however, what you have claimed. You have claimed that the K3 visa no longer exists. That's false. The fact of the matter is that K3 visa still exists. What doesn't exist at this time are the conditions required for the K3 visa to be viable - i.e. prolonged I-130 processing times for spouses. That's actually good news since it shows that I-130 processing at USCIS has improved significantly over the past decade. Which is what I've been saying. But by all means, fight another strawman if that helps you make your day.

[Karee 4,191]

All fine and dandy - aside from the personal attacks you attempt here. You should know that it matters not to the German oak when a hog rubs against it. But hey, none of what you say here refutes anything that I have said. It does refute, however, what you have claimed. You have claimed that the K3 visa no longer exists. That's false. The fact of the matter is that K3 visa still exists. What doesn't exist at this time are the conditions required for the K3 visa to be viable - i.e. prolonged I-130 processing times for spouses. That's actually good news since it shows that I-130 processing at USCIS has improved significantly over the past decade. Which is what I've been saying. But by all means, fight another strawman if that helps you make your day.

You accusing me of a personal attack is pretty funny. Never thought I'd hear that one from you of all people.

That link you posted references USCIS. I'll pull a Pusbrk here and give you another free lesson about the marriage immigration process. USCIS does NOT issue visas. USCIS only approves petitions. USCIS is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. Department of State issues visas. So USCIS can send all the approved I-129Fs paired with I-130s they want to NVC (Department of State) That doesn't mean a dam thing if NVC closes the the I-129F petition which they have been doing for 5+ years now when they receive an I-129F and an I-130 together, which is what happens in 99.9% of the cases. Again the delay you keep referencing was an NVC delay, not a USCIS delay.

No approved I-129F sent to the foreign consulate, NO K-3. Simple as that.

All of these newly minted democratic voters will have nothing to with NVC because they wont be applying for visas. They're already here.

It will definitely affect the processing times for petitions. It happened when they announced fee increase for N-400s back in 2007 and it happened again when all of these DACA petitions were filed

No strawman argument argument here, just plain facts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You accusing me of a personal attack is pretty funny. Never thought I'd hear that one from you of all people.

That link you posted references USCIS. I'll pull a Pusbrk here and give you another free lesson about the marriage immigration process. USCIS does NOT issue visas. USCIS only approves petitions. USCIS is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. Department of State issues visas. So USCIS can send all the approved I-129Fs paired with I-130s they want to NVC (Department of State) That doesn't mean a dam thing if NVC closes the the I-129F petition which they have been doing for 5+ years now when they receive an I-129F and an I-130 together, which is what happens in 99.9% of the cases. Again the delay you keep referencing was an NVC delay, not a USCIS delay.

No approved I-129F sent to the foreign consulate, NO K-3. Simple as that.

All of these newly minted democratic voters will have nothing to with NVC because they wont be applying for visas. They're already here.

It will definitely affect the processing times for petitions. It happened when they announced fee increase for N-400s back in 2007 and it happened again when all of these DACA petitions were filed

No strawman argument argument here, just plain facts.

No shite sherlock. The DOS acknowledges the existence of the K3 visa all the same. But carry on your lost battle. It's entertaining.

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/spouse-citizen.html#1

[Karee 4,191]

No shite sherlock. The DOS acknowledges the existence of the K3 visa all the same. But carry on your lost battle. It's entertaining.

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/spouse-citizen.html#1

From DOS website:

The Second Step: Applying for a Visa

Important Notice:

When both petitions have been approved by USCIS and sent to the NVC or when USCIS approves the I-130 before the I-129F, the availability of, as well as the need for, a nonimmigrant K-3 visa ends. If the NVC receives both an approved I-130 petition and an approved I-129F petition:

• The nonimmigrant K-3 visa case will be administratively closed.
• The application process explained below will not be available to the foreign-citizen spouse and cannot be used.
• The NVC will contact the U.S. citizen sponsor and foreign-citizen spouse, with instructions for processing the IR-1 (or CR-1) immigrant visa. For more information on the immigrant visa process, review the Immigrant Visa for a Spouse webpage.

Source: http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/spouse-citizen.html

If DOS receives the I-129F prior to the I-130, (which hasn't happened since roughly 2009) then they will forward it on to the consulate. Again, I suggest you spend a little more time in the upper forums before you start spouting off here about things you know nothing about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From DOS website:

The Second Step: Applying for a Visa

Important Notice:

When both petitions have been approved by USCIS and sent to the NVC or when USCIS approves the I-130 before the I-129F, the availability of, as well as the need for, a nonimmigrant K-3 visa ends. If the NVC receives both an approved I-130 petition and an approved I-129F petition:

• The nonimmigrant K-3 visa case will be administratively closed.
• The application process explained below will not be available to the foreign-citizen spouse and cannot be used.
• The NVC will contact the U.S. citizen sponsor and foreign-citizen spouse, with instructions for processing the IR-1 (or CR-1) immigrant visa. For more information on the immigrant visa process, review the Immigrant Visa for a Spouse webpage.

Source: http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/types/family/spouse-citizen.html

If DOS receives the I-129F prior to the I-130, (which hasn't happened since roughly 2009) then they will forward it on to the consulate. Again, I suggest you spend a little more time in the upper forums before you start spouting off here about things you know nothing about.

Yes, the I-130 processing times have vastly improved thus removing the conditions required for a K3 visa to be issued. I've said that at least twice before. What that shows, however, is NOT as you would want to make believe that the K3 visa no longer exists. What it shows instead is that I-130 are processed much faster today than they were back then which is what I've been saying all along.

If the hold-up was the I-130 processing at the NVC rather than USCIS as you would claim, then the K3 visa would not have been viable then either as the NVC would have had an approved I-130 and would have had to close the corresponding I-129 accordingly. That's not what happened back in the day. What happened was that the I-129 made it to the NVC way ahead of the I-130. So far ahead, in fact, the I-130 never made it to NVC for K3ers as they would have obtained the K3 visa, brought their spouse here and filed the I-485 to adjust status all while the I-130 was still in processing at USCIS which then married up the yet to be approved I-130 with the much later filed I-485 and processed them in parallel at USCIS entirely.

You can fight it all you want but that's how it worked back in the day. It could not have worked that way if the I-130 processing times were short as you would have us believe. They weren't. Believe me, I've been through it at the time. And taking your own argument and the above, you will see and understand that the I-130 delays were at USCIS - quite possibly with additional delays at NVC as well compared to the status quo.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,191]

From DoS statistics for FY 2013: 214 total K-3 visas issued worldwide.

Source: travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/NIVDetailTables/FY13NIVDetailTable.pdf

Page 21

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From DoS statistics for FY 2013: 214 total K-3 visas issued worldwide.

Source: travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/NIVDetailTables/FY13NIVDetailTable.pdf

Page 21

Okay, so it still exists. You were wrong. Thank you.