I-751 January 2017 Filers

[Amhara 460]

2 hours ago, mav11235 said:

Filing N-400 before getting I-751 approved is turning out to be a big mistake. 

The conventional wisdom on this forum used to be that it doesn't matter but it seems to matter now, maybe it's just coz of Trump's DHS and USCIS and the future (post Trump era) will be different.

Could you please explain more of what you mean?  Why would it not matter?  Isn’t citizenship the main goal for the majority of immigrants on this forum?

[mav11235 10]

1 hour ago, Amhara said:

Could you please explain more of what you mean?  Why would it not matter?  Isn’t citizenship the main goal for the majority of immigrants on this forum?

 

Had i known that applying for N-400 will delay my I-751 I would definitely not have applied for it.

Even if citizenship is the goal I think a lot of the people would like to not see their 10 year GC delayed, simply because not having a valid GC complicates everyday life matters like loans, international travel, driver's licenses etc.

 

Also, In this Trump era I would feel somewhat better with a valid GC than being slightly ahead in the line for citizenship.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mav11235

[Amhara 460]

1 hour ago, mav11235 said:

 

Had i known that applying for N-400 will delay my I-751 I would definitely not have applied for it.

Even if citizenship is the goal I think a lot of the people would like to not see their 10 year GC delayed, simply because not having a valid GC complicates everyday life matters like loans, international travel, driver's licenses etc.

 

Also, In this Trump era I would feel somewhat better with a valid GC than being slightly ahead in the line for citizenship.

I see what you mean, but everyone is delayed in getting their 10 year.  For us CSC folks, we are looking at 18+ months.  I am seeing approvals on the November 2016 thread for the GC!!!

 

We most certainly will file for USC because at this rate, even without USC, our case won’t be processed until after June 2019.  If we file the N-400 when eligible, we might have citizenship by the time our 10 year would be approved!

 

There is hope.  I snagged this screenshot today from someone in the November 2016 ROC filer thread:

[JohnInTX 9]

1 hour ago, mav11235 said:

 

Had i known that applying for N-400 will delay my I-751 I would definitely not have applied for it.

Even if citizenship is the goal I think a lot of the people would like to not see their 10 year GC delayed, simply because not having a valid GC complicates everyday life matters like loans, international travel, driver's licenses etc.

 

Also, In this Trump era I would feel somewhat better with a valid GC than being slightly ahead in the line for citizenship.

I haven't filed the N-400 and my extension letter expired in December 2017. Meanwhile with an expired GC (okay have since Dec 2017 a paper one for a year) have upgraded my driver's license applied for a car loan and got new employment.

Okay my wife was scared of passing me of a border patrol checkpoint (live in the 60 miles zone in Texas) since Trumps administration took office. But since I had to because of my work that scare settled. Now I pass one 3-4 times a week and sometimes twice a day without any trouble.

We even travelled international (crossed the border to Mexico 😂). Okay these crossings are registered and maybe reason for my scheduled interview.

 

The last rumor could make my citizenship maybe also difficult, but I am not afraid of it.

 

John

[Tania09 8]

My status changed to “New Card Is Being Produced on August 15th”, didn’t apply for N400 because of possible delay 

[Charly2 11]

On 8/16/2018 at 12:27 PM, mav11235 said:

Filing N-400 before getting I-751 approved is turning out to be a big mistake. 

The conventional wisdom on this forum used to be that it doesn't matter but it seems to matter now, maybe it's just coz of Trump's DHS and USCIS and the future (post Trump era) will be different.

On 8/16/2018 at 12:59 PM, Moekhs said:

i agree i made the same mistake and i regraded  

 

I don't believe that, guys. Just think for a second: you abide to the rules and do what USCIS allows you to do. That's why you go to their website, download the forms, the instructions, and read thoroughly. So don't act just based on assumptions, this is about following procedures, and the procedure tells you that you are eligible to apply 90 days before you're GC expires. I am not sure that is accurate to say than having both I 751 and N 400 means a delay (maybe yes), but IT'S NOT A MISTAKE and nobody is breaking any rule. You can and should apply for naturalization. I heard that a few officers got mad about the 2 processes pending at the same time...I don't understand that, but I can imply a reason: they're just way to busy and people with that specific situation are inconvenient. Plus the officer that do the N 400 interview might not be the same that does the I 751, so that becomes a logistical challenge (even more now, if we take into account the amount applications they received --and keep receiving since Trump won the Presidency) as they might don't have the staff available all the time.

 

I just know one thing: under the current migratory laws, I can apply for citizenship on a I 751 pending. Tomorrow, nobody knows.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by Charly2
Grammar

[Amhara 460]

5 hours ago, Charly2 said:

I just know one thing: under the current migratory laws, I can apply for citizenship on a I 751 pending. Tomorrow, nobody knows.

A good point, but remember, a single president does not have the authority to change federal laws.  He does have the authority to enforce current laws, though.  

[Charly2 11]

2 hours ago, Amhara said:

A good point, but remember, a single president does not have the authority to change federal laws.  He does have the authority to enforce current laws, though.  

He is already doing it. Not federal, but he is certainly taking  several steps that will make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens. In some cases, he doesn't even need the Congress to do t. Like they said: there's always a loophole and a way to go around.

Edited August 18, 2018 by Charly2
grammar...as always :(

[Amhara 460]

3 hours ago, Charly2 said:

He is already doing it. Not federal, but he is certainly taking  several steps that will make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens. In some cases, he doesn't even need the Congress to do t. Like they said: there's always a loophole and a way to go around.

How is the President changing laws?  How it it harder to become a US citizen?  More importantly, how is this done without Congress, who sets the laws???  That would be unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

 

Unless you are referring to establishing stricter policies to enforce the current laws, then that’s a different ball game.  I don’t see anything wrong with setting policies to prevent fraud marriages from bringing in people into citizenship.  I don’t think anyone agrees that sham cases should be allowed to “pass” the system.  While I am neutral towards the US President, I think you are making serious statements that are either not well founded or should be investigated.  In other words, it’s either a slanted statement or a violation of the US Constitution, which I take rather seriously.  I would be interested in more context of your statement to determine which case applies.

 

What has happened besides policies designed to prevent fraudulent cases from being approved for citizenship?  If the policies are what you are referring to, what is the determental and unreasonable aspects of them?  We should all know for our own cases.

[JohnInTX 9]

13 minutes ago, Amhara said:

How is the President changing laws?  How it it harder to become a US citizen?  

 

What has happened besides policies designed to prevent fraudulent cases from being approved for citizenship?  If the policies are what you are referring to, what is the determental and unreasonable aspects of them?  We should all know for our own cases.

Don't know if you read about GC holders or people waiting on a N-400 that have someone in their household that receives government support?

 

Is one of the advisors that is an immigrant descendant himself that came with the idea.

But everyone around here is a immigrant descendant. 

 

John

[Amhara 460]

2 minutes ago, JohnInTX said:

Don't know if you read about GC holders or people waiting on a N-400 that have someone in their household that receives government support?

Then I think if there is a new executive order or implemented policy that extends beyond the “public charge” rule, of which I had to agree to, then people should contact their US Representatives to find out about checking the executive powers.  If the policy enforced the current rule, then, I won’t understand the issue.  Certain immigrants are allowed public benefits, such as refugees.  Some are sponsored, such as families or students.  

 

An article I found on the topic from nymag.com states that Reuters commented that this would only apply for legal immigrants applying for US permanent residence and not to GC holders applying for USC.  If this is the case, should HB1 visa holders be allowed to apply for GCs if they receive public benefits?  (Keep in mind most programs don’t allow them to participate; they often aren’t eligible.). Should a family member bring in a relative to the US and get them a GC while they are on public benefits? (again, did they even qualify?). No, if I abandoned my spouse and they became a public charge, the US spouse should get charged by the government because they agreed to support them.  However, I don’t know the facts of this leaked policy and it may be applicable, regardless of the commentary.  

 

If this goes beyond executive powers, doesn’t the people have recourse?

[Charly2 11]

3 hours ago, Amhara said:

How is the President changing laws?  How it it harder to become a US citizen?  More importantly, how is this done without Congress, who sets the laws???  That would be unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

 

Unless you are referring to establishing stricter policies to enforce the current laws, then that’s a different ball game.  I don’t see anything wrong with setting policies to prevent fraud marriages from bringing in people into citizenship.  I don’t think anyone agrees that sham cases should be allowed to “pass” the system.  While I am neutral towards the US President, I think you are making serious statements that are either not well founded or should be investigated.  In other words, it’s either a slanted statement or a violation of the US Constitution, which I take rather seriously.  I would be interested in more context of your statement to determine which case applies.

 

What has happened besides policies designed to prevent fraudulent cases from being approved for citizenship?  If the policies are what you are referring to, what is the determental and unreasonable aspects of them?  We should all know for our own cases.

 

I don't understand how you ended up talking about "sham cases", "fraud" etc. All I am saying is that stricter policies --planed by the current administration, will make it harder for everybody who wants to get a GC or being naturalized. If you want context, you are welcome to read the news.

[JohnInTX 9]

10 hours ago, Amhara said:

Then I think if there is a new executive order or implemented policy that extends beyond the “public charge” rule, of which I had to agree to, then people should contact their US Representatives to find out about checking the executive powers.  If the policy enforced the current rule, then, I won’t understand the issue.  Certain immigrants are allowed public benefits, such as refugees.  Some are sponsored, such as families or students.  

 

An article I found on the topic from nymag.com states that Reuters commented that this would only apply for legal immigrants applying for US permanent residence and not to GC holders applying for USC.  If this is the case, should HB1 visa holders be allowed to apply for GCs if they receive public benefits?  (Keep in mind most programs don’t allow them to participate; they often aren’t eligible.). Should a family member bring in a relative to the US and get them a GC while they are on public benefits? (again, did they even qualify?). No, if I abandoned my spouse and they became a public charge, the US spouse should get charged by the government because they agreed to support them.  However, I don’t know the facts of this leaked policy and it may be applicable, regardless of the commentary.  

 

If this goes beyond executive powers, doesn’t the people have recourse?

The Washington Post writes this:"The initiative, in the works for more than a year, would make it harder for legal immigrants to receive either green cards or citizenship if they — or anyone in their households — has ever benefited from a long list of safety-net programs. These include the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), food stamps or even health insurance purchased on the Obamacare exchanges.

Three points are worth emphasizing here.

First is that, again, this policy would apply to immigrants who are in the country legally . It’s not about punishing people for “sneaking across the border,” that apparently unforgivable transgression that Trump officials have previously used to justify state-sanctioned child abuse. And, in any case, undocumented immigrants are  already excluded from nearly all federal anti-poverty programs.

 

As such, the proposal fits into President Trump’s agenda to dramatically cut levels of legal immigration, despite his rhetorical focus on the undocumented.

Second, this rule is ostensibly about making sure immigrants are self-sufficient and not a drain on public coffers. But NBC reports that the rule could disqualify immigrants making as much as 250 percent of the poverty level.

Moreover, an immigrant’s past use of benefits does not necessarily mean he or she will need them forever. Even the immigrant populations that you might expect to have the most trouble achieving economic self-sufficiency have proved to be a good long-term investment for the nation’s fiscal health.

For instance, refugees initially cost the government money; they need a lot of help, after all, given that they often arrive penniless and without proficient English-language skills. But over time, their work and wage prospects improve and, by their fifth year here, they pay more in taxes than they received in benefits on average, according to a government report commissioned and subsequently suppressed by the Trump administration last year. (The report eventually leaked to the New York Times.)

Third, and most important, is that under the proposal, it’s not only immigrants who must forgo safety-net benefits if they don’t wish to be penalized by the immigration system. It is  everyone in a given immigrant’s household.

That includes — based on an earlier leaked draft of the proposal published by The Post — an immigrant’s own children, even if those children are U.S. citizens who independently qualify for safety-net benefits.

That’s right. Legal-immigrant moms and dads may soon face a choice between (A) guaranteeing their U.S.-born children medical care, preschool classes and infant formula today, or (B) not threatening their own ability to qualify for green cards or citizenship tomorrow.

The universe of U.S.-citizen children who could be affected is large. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that, in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment alone in 2016, about 5.8 million citizen children had a noncitizen parent. 

The rule has not yet been issued. But various versions of it have leaked over the past year and a half. These have received coverage in foreign-language media, and fears about changes to immigration policy already appear to be discouraging participation in services meant to help low-income American children.

Including, perhaps most distressingly, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), a critical lifeline that provides access to food, prenatal care, breast pumps and other services for low-income mothers and children. WIC was listed in the draft rule published by The Post, and it’s not clear whether it remains in the latest version; but, either way, some immigrant parents and parents-to-be are already unenrolling, just in case.

“I had one family come and tell me, ‘Please remove us from WIC program, all services, medical, dental, everything,’ ” says Aliya S. Haq, the nutrition services supervisor at International Community Health Services in Seattle. The family had a child less than a year old who needed medical attention, but Haq could not convince them the benefits outweighed the risks of staying in the program.

Another patient, who is pregnant, asked to stop receiving prenatal assistance because she’s applying for citizenship.

Haq said the clinic’s WIC enrollment has fallen by about 10 percent over the past year; she worries daily about whether infant and maternal mortality rates will worsen, and whether there will be a negative effect on the brain development and long-term health of newborns.

Any policy that discourages, even a little bit, poor families’ use of such services is not just heartless. From an economic perspective, it is foolish. We need healthy, well-nourished, well-educated children to become healthy, well-nourished, productive workers.

But once again, children and the economic future they represent are the casualties of Trump’s casual cruelty."

 

So it does include people renewing their GC or applying for Citizenship. Just people like us.

It could effect me as my special needs US-citizen born (step-)son does have Medicaid for the past two years.

 

We just wait and see. I could explain our situation but that is getting too personal for a forum.

 

John

 

[implife 318]

15 hours ago, Amhara said:

That would be unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment.

Yeah, this ship has sailed a long time ago! There are so many grounds for impeachment, the orange ape has no place to stand.

[implife 318]

15 hours ago, Amhara said:

If this goes beyond executive powers, doesn’t the people have recourse?

Yes, they do. Vote the bastards out of the office this fall. Impeach the orange ape. Move on with our lives.