Another Adam Walsh Act Style Immigration Issue

[prpplague 0]

Just wanted to point out that there is another Adam Walsh Act style immigration issue on the horizon:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-78

summary:

American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act of 2006 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) from approving a family-based immigration petition or fiance/fiancee nonimmigrant petition by a petitioner certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as owing child support arrearages.

Authorizes the Secretary to revoke a previously-approved petition (if a visa has not been issued or a status adjustment has not been effected) if such petition would not have been approved had the provisions of this Act been in effect.

i called Rep. Bartlett's ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400017 ) office about this. the only response i got from the staff person i spoke to was that they were unconcerned about how USCIS woud implemented the law or how much time it would add to the visa process.

[rebeccajo 14]

Interesting.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

wow imagine arriving on a K1 getting married then filing for AOS and it being denied because there are arrears of child support.... what would happen to the K1 person??

Guess we will have to wait and see....

looks like another black hole is about to open..

Kez

[Nancy2015 2]

This is interesting. I'm glad I already made it through the process, cause my hubby owes child support.

I wonder what reasons they can find for proposing a law like that...

Edited February 20, 2007 by Jewel12

[rebeccajo 14]

This is interesting. I'm glad I already made it through the process, cause my hubby owes child support.

I wonder what reasons they can find for proposing a law like that...

Owing back child support. Closing loopholes for that.

[payxibka 10,045]

Deadbeat mommies and daddies

[Geist 0]

I wonder what reasons they can find for proposing a law like that...

To make life harder for those of us who follow the law.

I can't believe your congressman had the gall to basically say they didn't care what this new law did to people in your situation. That says a lot about how much he cares about his constituents, doesn't it?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I wonder what reasons they can find for proposing a law like that...

To make life harder for those of us who follow the law.

I can't believe your congressman had the gall to basically say they didn't care what this new law did to people in your situation. That says a lot about how much he cares about his constituents, doesn't it?

Or, it could be interpretted to mean that he cares a lot about his constituents, given the purpose of the new proposal

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I agree with it.... why should someone be allowed to bring a new spouse here when they are not paying for the children of a previous relationship....

After all the children who are not getting the support from the absent parent are the ones who are suffering... if you have kids then you have to take responsibility for their upkeep.... easy answer is pay your child support then you will have no problems...

Kez

[Niels Bohr 72]

Not everybody agrees in on centralize manner. They need to introduce these legislations to limit the amount of trafficking not limited to child support. Many factors comes into play. To express my own opinion, I hate it so much because it causes many aches for those who have to wait for their love ones overseas. Is this law use to punish the good people, or the bad people? How many bad people are there compared to good people? Is it fair?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

If you are a USC and you have children that you have to pay child support for then your first priority is to those children.... if you claim you can not affored to pay your child support and build up arrears then how are you going to support a new spouse and pay for the fees involved with immigration and the cost of at least one trip overseas to vist them?????

In my book your children always come first... even if you dont live with them...

its not a case of being unfair to the good its a case of facing your responsibilities...

Kez

[Niels Bohr 72]

You know yourself if you're good or not. And, you know if you support a law like that then amend it so that it excludes those people who support their kids. This is the problem with laws like that is that it includes all people. Convicted criminals, and good civilians carries the same weight. Such irony.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

It will only effect your case if you or your USC partner have arrears of child support... if you dont then it will have no effect...

Kez

[kerewin21 2]

It will only effect your case if you or your USC partner have arrears of child support... if you dont then it will have no effect...

Kez

I agree... You will only have a problem if you are violating the law by not paying the child support you are judged to have to pay. There are way too many people out there who don't pay the money they owe to support their children, and I certainly don't think they should have access to immigration benefits if they are in that category.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Yes, they don't deserve to have access to immigration benefits. However, doesn't that make it more difficult to obtain benefits who deserve access to immigration benefits. It makes it even more difficult for legit filers to get benefits. I will favor laws that can differentiate the two, not laws that include the two delimmas.