MEGATHREAD- What does a Trump Presidency mean for visas? (merged)

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Trump is not anti Islamic or anti immigration. He is against terrorists coming into our contry unchecked and illegal ailiens breaking the law to come here. He supports legal immigration and said he wants to make the process easier for people doing it the right way. A lot of misinformation going around here. By the way those of you in same sex marriages have nothing to worry about either. Trump has been an outspoken supporter of gay rights for years. Don't believe everything the TV tells you. Do your own research.

My own research is listening to his rants. The words that came out of his mouth were to stop Muslims.

I think you need to do the research. He flip flops on gay rights.

[USAMorocco 143]

The problem is, like most of what Trump says, there are no specifics. The campaign is vague and hasn't mentioned any specific countries that would be part of a hypothetical immigration ban. My fiancee is from Indonesia, a country the US has a great relationship with but one which has its own issues with extremism in some areas. We're on track for her to get the visa sometime in April or May, but that's plenty of time for Trump to create an executive order banning immigration from a number of Muslim-majority countries. Do I think this will happen right away? Who knows? If it happens, will the courts challenge it? Certainly. But how long could that take? What happens to visas currently being processed?

There's so much uncertainty, and that's what's scary about this. I love my country, and I know my fiancee will love it here too. But if she's not welcome, what choice do I have but to leave?

On behalf of my countrymen, I'm so sorry. Nobody deserves even more anxiety when they're already undergoing a stressful process...

If you go back and look at Paul Ryan's comments...The Republican party will not go along with this. Plus banning a group of people because of their religion is unconstitutional. Seriously, please don't be scared. There are way too many people that have their pockets lined with oil from these countries. It is all about the money. Reps all said the same thing he can't just ban people. <3 Good luck to you. Focus on the journey not him. Believe me the stress from the visa journey will be enough.

[Piggus 49]

If you go back and look at Paul Ryan's comments...The Republican party will not go along with this. Plus banning a group of people because of their religion is unconstitutional. Seriously, please don't be scared. There are way too many people that have their pockets lined with oil from these countries. It is all about the money. Reps all said the same thing he can't just ban people. <3 Good luck to you. Focus on the journey not him. Believe me the stress from the visa journey will be enough.

I'm not worried about Trump banning people based on their religion. That IS unconstitutional and he in fact walked back that proposal back in June or July. Unfortunately he didn't receive too much pushback from his updated proposal of suspending immigration by country, which is basically the same thing. :/

You're right though, we just need to stay focused. That's all we can do right now.

[jg121783 3,909]

Donald Trump’s More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in G.O.P.

Elton John and his longtime boyfriend, David Furnish, entered a civil partnership on Dec. 21, 2005, in England under a law the country had just enacted granting recognition to same-sex couples. The congratulations poured in as the two men appeared at a joyous ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, amid a crush of paparazzi. Donald J. Trump, who had known the couple for years, took to his blog to express his excitement.

“I know both of them, and they get along wonderfully. It’s a marriage that’s going to work,” Mr. Trump wrote, adding: “I’m very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other.”

Mr. Trump is now the leading candidate for president in the Republican primary, which has traditionally been dominated by hopefuls eager to show how deeply conservative they are on social issues like gay rights and marriage.

But Mr. Trump is far more accepting of sexual minorities than his party’s leaders have been. On Thursday, he startled some Republicans by saying on NBC’s “Today” show that he opposed a recently passed North Carolina law that prohibits people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to the gender they were born with, striking down a Charlotte ordinance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/politics/donald-trump-gay-rights.html

As I have said those of you applying for visas based on same sex relationships have nothing to worry about. Those of you going through the legal immigration process without ties to terrorism or a serious criminal history also have nothing to worry about. Lets put this one to bed already. It's bad enough my family keeps asking me how this will affect my wife and step son's visas and my wife's friends who already immigrated here are making her worry for no reason.

[K1samesexVisa 0]

Same-sex here too. We actually just got our marriage license today no problem and we'll be getting married next week. I think once things are already approved, I can't see them retro-actively revoking them, especially beyond AOS already.

thank god i read this, like i'll have my interview on the 25th of this month, and same sex too that's why we are so worried.. coz our wedding is still on April2017

[natasha-mehdito 137]

Trump, or ANY U.S. president, does not have the power to stop the K1, CR1 visa process. Congress must agree and it takes quite a while to make ANY immigration reform. They can do more thorough security checks from Middle Eastern/ North African countries which is to be expected considering all that is happening around the world. Its unconstitutional to forbid a group of people based on their religion from entering. Try to just focus on your processes to be with loved ones!

[JGUnion 10]

It is my belief that anyone who is applying legally and being upfront with all of their information, then there should be no additional worry. The K-1 Visa process is very thorough and is THE proper channel for entering into the US. Remember, the US is a nation of immigrants. Those who are doing it the right way, should not be denied solely based on their country of origin.

What Trump intends to change is the minimal amount of background checks on those coming from the southern border and those that have been received by "sanctuary cities". These people are not getting a rigorous background check like we are, and a few bad eggs have slipped through. Trump said in the last debate that it isn't fair to allow thousands to enter without vetting them when there are so many who are trying to enter the proper way.

[Sukie 1,454]

I am also a same-sex couple, and I *DO* think we have something to worry about. The first thing that will probably happen is that Trump will appoint people to the Supreme Court who do not believe the Constitution protects us by giving us the right to marry. The result of that will be that the decision of who gets to marry will be returned to the States.

If you are from New York or California, no big deal. But if you are from Alabama or Arkansas, you have a lot to worry about. Even if you are allowed to stay married, you could still be stripped of rights that are automatically given to married couples.

The second big fear is that DOMA will be reinstated, which will mean that same-sex couples will not be able to bring their foreign spouses to the US. What this means for MY case is that my spouse, who is Australian, will probably get her 10-year Green Card (we are six months into it already), but that she would not be allowed to become a Citizen.

If DOMA is reinstated, then no same-sex couples will be allowed to immigrate using a family visa. EB3 dependents will not be allowed to enter the US.

So same-sex couples SHOULD be frightened out of their wits.

Interestingly enough, I don't think it will be Trump himself who pushes for any of this - it will be his henchmen and the Tea Party people who will force his hand.

The K-1 process will slow down. If you are Muslim, the process will slow down. If you are from a country where security issues are rife, your country may appear on a black list.

If you are a straight couple who will finish the process by March or April next year, you will be fine.

My opinions.

Sukie in NY

Edited November 10, 2016 by Sukie

[ACubed 3]

I have my N400 pending and not a visa holder but thought would chime in. I am worried about long delays not my naturalization itself.

I believe there will be some immigration changes coming but not sure how many will get implemented in the first few months. The first target will likely be criminal illegal immigrants and immigration from countries high on terrorism watch list. I believe for any President these are likely to be concerns. Obama's presidency has seen plenty illegal immigrants deported. His administration did not give a huge voice to those deportations as Trump has been saying he will.

In the long run, I think the H1B program is likely to see changes. There are many companies that do exploit the program. There have already been changes in terms of reduction in numbers etc. Some other programs are likely to see changes as well.

His first 100 days in office are going to be focused on more than just immigration. He has trade, healthcare, economy, jobs etc on his 100 day agenda.

For those that have discussed same sex marriage based immigration, I read a post here on this thread where the member was trying to find the right word to describe people that are already in the process and are not likely to be affected. I believe the word is "grandfathered in". I do believe even if same sex marriage visa category gets taken away, people in process are likely to be grandfathered in.

Yes, there is likely to be more stringent measures for legal immigrants too but it is better to stay positive and ensure that we over prepare with all the required documentation and then some; when we go in for our interviews, apply etc.

In the long run I am not sure every change proposed is possible. The country's fiscal budget or the need for workers across all professions and skills with baby boomers retiring in the next 10 to 15 years cannot support all the changes proposed. There are not enough millennials to replace baby boomers, one reason why there are less people in the work force.

Edited November 10, 2016 by ACubed

[claire_in_nl 2]

I just filed an I-130 for my husband, and I'm terrified that he will get cold feet about moving to the US, even if the visa process is successful. He was ambivalent at best about the prospect of moving, even before this happened, and I feel like a terrible person for asking him to do this for me.

I'm still anxious to get back there, though I had hoped that it would be under better circumstances. After 12 years of living abroad and still not feeling at home, I'm throwing in the towel. Living in a foreign country is stressful enough for me even when we don't have a president everyone hates. I'm working at home for a couple of days because I can't bear the thought of seeing my colleagues right now.

[Rick&Maeve 8]

Here's a summary put out yesterday detailing what Trump's Immigration plan would entail.

NOVEMBER 9, 2016 8:47AM

President Trump’s Immigration Plans

By ALEX NOWRASTEH

SHARE

Trump’s victory in the Presidential election is a tremendous political upset. The biggest issue raised by Trump was immigration—and he didn’t waiver from his restrictionist position. Although the polling data doesn’t show support for Trump’s position and the election was not a blowout, depending on whether he wins the popular vote (unclear at this time) he and other restrictionist Republicans will take this as a mandate to follow through on his immigration promises.

Trump’s stump speeches were superficial but his immigration position paper was detailed and specific. Simply, it calls for a 20 percent to 60 percent cut in green cards and a huge increase in immigration enforcement. Here are the details from his immigration position paper fleshed out:

1. Border wall. The completion of a border wall or at least 1000 miles of it (there are about 700 miles of walls and barriers currently). This wall could be virtual but he sold it as a physical barrier. His border wall is meant to address illegal border crossings that began subsiding a decade ago and are now near their post-1970 historical low point. There is a perception of chaos on the border that doesn’t reflect reality, but perception is all that matters in politics. The best way to further reduce unlawful immigration would be to create a low-skilled guest worker visa program or expand the existing ones, but Trump’s position paper precludes such a policy option.
2. Nationwide E-Verify. Mandated nationwide E-Verify for all new hires in the United States as a means to exclude illegal immigrants from employment. E-Verify is an electronic eligibility for employment verification that checks a new hire’s identity information against government databases to approve or deny them employment. My colleague Jim Harper and I published a policy paper last year detailing all of the problems this system poses from economic, privacy, civil liberties, and effectiveness standpoints. E-Verify will add to the more than 13.48 man-hours spent by employers annually dealing with the I-9 form, unintentionally deny and delay many American workers legal employment due to inaccuracies, boost the black market in identity documents, and cost billions in taxpayer and economic costs to implement. E-Verfiy is also unenforced and ineffective at dimming the wage magnet in states where it is already mandated. E-Verify will fail to live up to its expectations and will be followed by calls for a national biometric identity card to seal gaps in the system.
3. End birthright citizenship. This would most likely require a constitutional amendment although Judge Richard Posner, noted legal scholar, thinks it can be changed by statute. Birthright citizenship is a lot older than the Fourteenth Amendment and has aided in the assimilation of generations of immigrants, in contrast to the experiences of assimilation in European nations without birthright citizenship. If implemented, jus sanguinis (citizenship through blood relations) would replace jus soli as the most important citizenship law of the land—an embrace of Carthaginian over Roman values.
4. End DACA. President Obama’s executive action for unlawful immigrants brought here as children gave temporary work permits and relief from potential deportation (not a path to citizenship) to about 665,000 people. The continuation of this program depends on the actions of the President. Although this is not spelled out in his immigration position paper, it’s likely that Trump will decline to continue the program by stopping the periodic renewals required by law, thus opening up this population to deportation. Trump’s administration will also now have access to the identities of all the beneficiaries of DACA who had to submit their personal information to benefit, a source of information that could be used to more efficiently deport them. This has the potential to be a heart-wrenching humanitarian disaster for the DACA beneficiaries, their families, and those of us who count some of them as friends.
5. Mandatory detention. Detain all illegal immigrants apprehended while entering the United States. This policy is already partially implemented but could be greatly expanded. It would require new detention facilities similar to those used to detain Unauthorized Alien Children from Central America at serious economic and humanitarian cost.
6. Immigration moderation. Trump’s paper calls for a “pause” on the issuance of new green cards to workers abroad so that “employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.” There were 151,596 employment-based green cards issued in 2014. 86 percent of them went to workers already in the United States on other visas. The other 14 percent went to workers abroad. The government also issued 645,560 family-based green cards in 2014, all of which allow recipients to work in the United States. 61 percent of these family-based green cards went to immigrants who were not in the country on another visa. Depending on how you dice it, this provision could cut between about 140,000 and 540,000 green cards annually.
7. Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. This policy proposal will reduce the number of legal skilled temporary migrant workers. Just over 124,000 H-1Bs were approved in 2014 for initial employment in the United States, with 85,000 of them for employment in firms and the rest in non-profit research institutions. These workers have an average salary of $75,000 so they do not compete with low-skilled America workers. If the minimum salary for H-1B visas was bumped up to $100,000 then the number of H-1Bs hired by private firms would decrease while they’d also shrink for research institutions. The 75th percentile for wage compensation for H-1B workers is $81,000. Even including all of the petitions for high wage workers that are rejected each year, this reform would significantly shrink the number of H-1B visas issued at an enormous economic cost. The H-1B system is also the feeder to the employment-based green card so any change here could disrupt future flows there even if no other changes are made.
8. Requirement to hire American workers first. This policy would increase the regulatory cost for American firms hiring skilled foreign workers in specialty occupations. Congress considered this policy for the H-1B visa in 1990 and rejected it because the regulatory costs would be so high. If Trump is the anti-regulation candidate he claims to be then he’ll reject this provision.
9. Refugee program for American children. This policy would raise the standards for refugees and asylum seekers to cut down on supposed abuse and fraud. Assuming the worst case scenario, Trump’s policy proposal would decrease humanitarian immigration by 70 percent if trumped up fraud statistics are to be believed. That policy, if in place in 2016, would have cut the number of refugees by about 60,000 under the worst case scenario.

The taxpayer cost of enforcing America’s immigration laws to the point where all illegal immigrants are removed and future flows stopped would be $419 to $619 billion over 20 years, according to estimates by the American Action Forum. These estimates do not include negative economic effects and lost tax revenue from a subsequently smaller economy. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates that an attrition through enforcement policy would increase projected deficits by about $800 billion over the next 20 years. Those estimates don’t include the cost to the economy and government finances of slashing legal immigration.

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trumps-immigration-plans

Also the New York Times discussed his plans to reform legal immigration in this October 18th 2016 article

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/18/us/politics/trump-legal-immigration.html

Trump address on immigration, Aug. 31, 2016

The Trump campaign wants to measure immigration by its share of the population, and to keep it below the historical high of 14.8 percent in the 1890s. The foreign-born populationin the United States is projected to reach 18 percent by 2065.

The roots of Mr. Trump’s ideas are in landmark legislation in 1921 and 1924, when the United States established its first national-origin immigration quotas, meant to encourage migration from Northern and Western European countries. The restriction resulted in the foreign-born population share dropping sharply to its lowest point, 4 percent in the 1960s, from about 13 percent.

In 1965, the quota system was replaced with a system prioritizing family reunification and skilled immigrants. The foreign-born population steadily rose to about 14 percent, and under current immigration law, it is expected to increase to 18 percent by 2065, according to the Pew Research Center.

How should “historical norms” be defined?

To return to a historical norm in the foreign-born population, Mr. Trump would have to change the number of green cards issued. But the Trump campaign has not clarified its definition of “historical norms,” so here are some potential scenarios:

Scenario 1: The life span of
the national-origin quotas

If Mr. Trump’s historical norm is 1921 to 1965, he would have to cut the number of green cards issued to immigrants entering the United States by 51%.

[Adam&Allison 128]

It sounds like family based visas will be OK - from everything I've read, it sounds like he wants to prevent the abuse of work based visas more than anything.

After what I've read, I'd be surprised if he made significant changes to marriage visas or family based green cards

[millefleur 5,046]

Some of the stuff in Trump's immigration policy basically already exists in most European Union countries when it comes to protecting jobs for EU citizens only. Also, no countries in Europe that I'm aware of offer birthright citizenship, so again, some of these policies are actually closer to "liberal" Europe than some would care to admit. The policies about deportation could be worrying for some in certain circumstances, however.

P.S. Trump's married to a foreigner who got a green card and citizenship via a USC. I really don't think he would be able to cut family visas (especially for spouses) without insane backlash merely due to that fact.

[Krissyb93 27]

Brother they can do anythign they want.its there country they got the power.but its not goint to start soon. Like i said 20 jan 2017 after he will make this perposal and give it to senate and they debate will happen will b voting . Might be challenged in court .it will take time to do this .so no need to worry right now.untill a law come on immigration.all visa will b granted. What u can do from ur side if nvc ,embassy wants something provide them fast and accurate.so u can get ur visa fast.

Muslim from all countries .might be not in those list who is in America benifits.time will tell.

This has never made any sense to me. How do you know when someone is Muslim unless it says so on their birth certificate or something? My husband is Indian, and Sikh by religion. Are they just going to assume anyone who looks a certain way is a Muslim? I just can't wrap my head around this.

[Krissyb93 27]

Campaign talk, insulting an Indian couple who were Gold Star parents are just some of the examples which DID happen. Unfortunately it raised the temperature and level of worry, I know as some parts of my family in the US are "split" and not talking due to FB exchanges!

The key is to split out the talk to date and the talk of a President as you observed/said.

That's all nice but he wants to sign a bill that would allow discrimination against gay people because they're gay.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Krissyb93