Federal Government Immigration Initiatives

[Janelle2002 3,865]

your case is different than most vjers. your situation, imo, is just as urgent as families on the verge of separation over deportation. the trick is getting america angry and demanding action on the 'regular' visa application. seems pretty hard to do, because no one is 'getting anything for free' or 'illegal', there's no reason for the majority of america to care..

Outside of holding up a picket sign what else am I supposed to do? How do you get people angry and demanding over legal immigration when the people doing this right are actually working 40 hours a week.

[Karee 4,191]

your case is different than most vjers. your situation, imo, is just as urgent as families on the verge of separation over deportation. the trick is getting america angry and demanding action on the 'regular' visa application. seems pretty hard to do, because no one is 'getting anything for free' or 'illegal', there's no reason for the majority of america to care..

One major difference. One family took the legal route, the other didn't. That's the glaring difference that so many seem to miss.

[decocker 7,198]

Outside of holding up a picket sign what else am I supposed to do? How do you get people angry and demanding over legal immigration when the people doing this right are actually working 40 hours a week.

oh i have no clue how to get immigration reform to happen outside of electing officials who see the need and are willing to work on it. the only light at the end of the tunnel i see, is if these immigration initiatives move forward the big questions like 'where's my refund since others don't have to pay? or 'what about my family being separated?' (all completely legitimate questions) will spark some overhaul. i don't think protesting will do much of anything.

[decocker 7,198]

One major difference. One family took the legal route, the other didn't. That's the glaring difference that so many seem to miss.

too many people, too many individual histories, reasons for being here. the point is we shouldn't compare the two - i think the focus has to be on demanding equal attention to legal immigration reform, not pointing at someone else and saying "not fair".

[Janelle2002 3,865]

oh i have no clue how to get immigration reform to happen outside of electing officials who see the need and are willing to work on it. the only light at the end of the tunnel i see, is if these immigration initiatives move forward the big questions like 'where's my refund since others don't have to pay? or 'what about my family being separated?' (all completely legitimate questions) will spark some overhaul. i don't think protesting will do much of anything.

But who do you ask these questions to that are going to listen?

[decocker 7,198]

But who do you ask these questions to that are going to listen?

i really don't know. i was just reading through my fb feed and some people were posting stuff like 'so glad obama is finally doing something about immigration' and headlines like 'huge moves for immigration'..

the general public does not understand legal immigration to even know it needs fixing, let alone what needs to be done for that to happen.

unfortunately, money is what makes things happen in washington. plenty of money can also make the legal immigration process much more manageable, than it is to say two poor people in love who have no means pay all the fees. from top to bottom the way we deal with immigration works against family cohesiveness, not for it. but we're applauding ourselves now for making great strides.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

http://www.uscis.gov/immigrationaction#3

Q2: How many individuals does USCIS expect will apply?

A2: Preliminary estimates show that roughly 4.9 million individuals may be eligible for the initiatives announced by the President. However, there is no way to predict with certainty how many individuals will apply. USCIS will decide applications on a case-by-case basis and encourages as many people as possible to consider these new initiatives. During the first two years of DACA, approximately 60 percent of potentially eligible individuals came forward. However, given differences among the population eligible for these initiatives and DACA, actual participation rates may vary.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

Not a lawyer here, but I would guess that the way to tackle it would be violation of substantive due process: the government discriminates against our marriages by putting financial requirements on US citizens and depriving us of conjugal rights by separating us. The burden of proof (needing to pay joint bills and produce the documents that make us appear married for two years) also violates our privacy and restricts our freedoms in other, sometimes non-trivial ways: for example, my husband and I are about to have an interview most likely because I commute to school. If I take a leave of absence to deal with more of this immigration bollocks, I may lose my scholarship and my livlihood.

Marriage (and the benefits of cohabitation) is arguably a fundamental right under US law, which means that the government can't deprive us of it without a valid reason (National security is this). Even if they have a valid reason, the law must be narrowly tailored to prevent discrimination. The minimum financial requirement is probably not as narrowly tailored as it could be: all the government needs to do is say that the non-USC has no recourse to public funds. Separation during waiting times is not as narrowly tailored as it could be: it takes 15 minutes to run a background check proving legal marriage and lack of criminal history for the USC. It's longer than this for foreign nationals, but it's certainly not 8 months or more, during which many couples, especially non-European ones, are forced to be separated. Even the Europeans are faced with the choice of "visiting" at great personal expense. The requirement that we prove we're married "in good faith" is also fairly ridiculous: legal marriage is easy to prove, so what they're trying to justify is some kind of undefinable "romantic marriage" yet they ignore "romantic evidence" like photographs. It is basically a witch hunt.

I would argue that the only things the government has a right to prove is that we're legally married, and allowing our spouses to enter the country poses no threat to national security. Which is all to say, I would be behind this if a lawyer would take the case.

I'd say stir up the folks at Fox News. There has got to be someone in that community who would take a case like this just to stick it to Obama.

[Karee 4,191]

too many people, too many individual histories, reasons for being here. the point is we shouldn't compare the two - i think the focus has to be on demanding equal attention to legal immigration reform, not pointing at someone else and saying "not fair".

So then why have immigration laws at all? It sends a clear message that it's perfectly fine to break the law, and not only that you will be rewarded for breaking the law down the road. If anyone thinks this isn't going to kick off a massive influx of people entering without inspection (against the law) they are seriously deluded.

Just because folks may not agree with a certain law, doesn't mean that it's ok to break that law. There are mechanisms in place to change laws. That is the job of congress, not the president. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. Obama is setting a dangerous precedent here. There will be a Republican president again one day. What if he/she starts making his own laws for political gain?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

So then why have immigration laws at all? It sends a clear message that it's perfectly fine to break the law, and not only that you will be rewarded for breaking the law down the road. If anyone thinks this isn't going to kick off a massive influx of people entering without inspection (against the law) they are seriously deluded.

Just because folks may not agree with a certain law, doesn't mean that it's ok to break that law. There are mechanisms in place to change laws. That is the job of congress, not the president. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. Obama is setting a dangerous precedent here. There will be a Republican president again one day. What if he/she starts making his own laws for political gain?

Reward the law breakers, bust balls of those who follow the process. I wonder how many illegals will get a RFE?

Do you think any will be put in AP? Of course not, the Gov. will believe everything they tell them. It's us law abider's who are the real problem.

Edited November 21, 2014 by spookyturtle

[decocker 7,198]

So then why have immigration laws at all? It sends a clear message that it's perfectly fine to break the law, and not only that you will be rewarded for breaking the law down the road. If anyone thinks this isn't going to kick off a massive influx of people entering without inspection (against the law) they are seriously deluded.

Just because folks may not agree with a certain law, doesn't mean that it's ok to break that law. There are mechanisms in place to change laws. That is the job of congress, not the president. That goes for Democrats and Republicans. Obama is setting a dangerous precedent here. There will be a Republican president again one day. What if he/she starts making his own laws for political gain?

well i think that's the whole issue, the immigration laws we have are no good, need reworking. it's dumb to tie immigration in with marriage and that's one of the main ways to legally get here. i could argue this premise only promotes fraud which creates the need for all the ridiculous background checks (background checks that have only become more bloated in order to 'prevent' terrorism alongside the friggin tsa). at the end of the day immigration is a bureaucratic function, and i don't know about you - but that's what i do for a living - deal with bureaucrats. EVERYTHING they do is self serving, job security and tax (their income) based. all the forms, all the fees, all the monthly reporting. uscis? same thing - nothing more that a bloated bureaucratic function.

i don't really agree that its never okay to break the law but that's not the point. i am aware that immigration reform should have been properly handled by congress. but that isn't happening and hasn't happened. and that's the reason executive orders exist. something has to be done.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Not a lawyer here, but I would guess that the way to tackle it would be violation of substantive due process: the government discriminates against our marriages by putting financial requirements on US citizens and depriving us of conjugal rights by separating us. The burden of proof (needing to pay joint bills and produce the documents that make us appear married for two years) also violates our privacy and restricts our freedoms in other, sometimes non-trivial ways: for example, my husband and I are about to have an interview most likely because I commute to school. If I take a leave of absence to deal with more of this immigration bollocks, I may lose my scholarship and my livlihood.

Marriage (and the benefits of cohabitation) is arguably a fundamental right under US law, which means that the government can't deprive us of it without a valid reason (National security is this). Even if they have a valid reason, the law must be narrowly tailored to prevent discrimination. The minimum financial requirement is probably not as narrowly tailored as it could be: all the government needs to do is say that the non-USC has no recourse to public funds. Separation during waiting times is not as narrowly tailored as it could be: it takes 15 minutes to run a background check proving legal marriage and lack of criminal history for the USC. It's longer than this for foreign nationals, but it's certainly not 8 months or more, during which many couples, especially non-European ones, are forced to be separated. Even the Europeans are faced with the choice of "visiting" at great personal expense. The requirement that we prove we're married "in good faith" is also fairly ridiculous: legal marriage is easy to prove, so what they're trying to justify is some kind of undefinable "romantic marriage" yet they ignore "romantic evidence" like photographs. It is basically a witch hunt.

I would argue that the only things the government has a right to prove is that we're legally married, and allowing our spouses to enter the country poses no threat to national security. Which is all to say, I would be behind this if a lawyer would take the case.

I'd say stir up the folks at Fox News. There has got to be someone in that community who would take a case like this just to stick it to Obama.

While we do have the right to be married to whomever we please within the law, it is a privilege accorded us to bring non-USC spouses (or allow them to adjust) to the States to live permanently. Only natural-born USCs have an irrevocable* right to be here and enter freely.

*Barring something like voluntary surrender of citizenship.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtfCRaNg5EU

[MyLittlePony 340]

The President has the power to do this? no one cant stop him?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

While we do have the right to be married to whomever we please within the law, it is a privilege accorded us to bring non-USC spouses (or allow them to adjust) to the States to live permanently. Only natural-born USCs have an irrevocable* right to be here and enter freely.

*Barring something like voluntary surrender of citizenship.

Only a lawyer would put a clause in a forum post.

The President has the power to do this? no one cant stop him?

He's not the President. He's a dictator.