Trump's future immigration policies- speculation MEGATHREAD

[Coco8 1,042]

2 minutes ago, Eric-Pris said:

the opposition always has enough politicians in their pockets to block

I think you mean: People vote representatives that represent their views and some are part of the opposition, and because to win reelection they need the support of their constituents, they block legislation they don't like.

 

The phrase "opposition has politicians in their pockets" makes no logical sense. 

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

7 minutes ago, Coco8 said:

I think you mean: People vote representatives that represent their views and some are part of the opposition, and because to win reelection they need the support of their constituents, they block legislation they don't like.

 

The phrase "opposition has politicians in their pockets" makes no logical sense. 

WOW!  You actually believe that politicians vote based on what their constituents want?  How old are you?  You must be young and naïve.  They vote on who pays the most.

 

If I'm a billion dollar company and the proposed legislation will decrease my revenues by 50%, I will make sure to pay enough politicians to vote it down. 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Eric-Pris

[charmander 692]

1 hour ago, mallafri76 said:

And don't get me started on the law that says anyone born in America is a USC. That stems from some 250 years ago, when America was founded and to ensure that the British couldn't come back and force people from their land. It's completely outdated and America, along with I think Nigeria, are the only two countries with that law. For every other country on the planet, you need to have a tie to the country to become a citizen, i.e a mum or dad who is a citizen of the country. But I doubt they'll ever change that.

US health industry loves the birth tourism. Unlike the insurance companies, birth tourists pay the full list price asked by the hospital. It's a win situation for the US hospitals and doctors. Then there are taxes. unlike many other countries whose tax system is residential, US taxation is citizenship based. US citizens need to pay taxes on foreign earnings above a threshold. People coming US to give birth are generally wealthy, hence their US citizen children are likely to be wealthy in the future. These kids may never live in the US for the rest of their lives but Uncle Sam will find them to get his share. Hence, win situation for Uncle Sam too. That's why I doubt birthright citizenship is going away.

 

[Coco8 1,042]

4 minutes ago, Eric-Pris said:

WOW!  You actually believe that politicians vote based on what their constituents want?  How old are you?  You must be young and naïve.  They vote on who pays the most.

 

If I'm a billion dollar company and the proposed legislation will decrease my revenues by 50%, I will make sure to pay enough politicians to vote it down. 

 

 

 

You can be a cynic but then again, House elections are every 2 years and the reelection rate is over 80%. If people really hated their representatives they would vote to change them. They don't. 

 

Yes, lobbying can matter, but only in the margins. 

 

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

2 hours ago, mallafri76 said:

nfair requirements for the cr/ir-1 visa for example, where someone with barely any bona fida evidence in say Denmark can sail through while someone with much more evidence in Ghana will be denied. There needs to be more tangible requirements for the cr/or-1, which should be the same regardless of Embassy. 

 

 

Well, we had zero evidence, but did we need it?  Nope.   However, there are other couples that needed to provide more based on their unique circumstances. I think it is naive to assume that the US government isn't acutely aware that more fraudulent relationships come out of some embassies versus others.  It is also wise for embassies to take into account the circumstance of each individual relationship.  Let's say you have us at the time of petition: 25/26 years old, fairly similar on the scale of looks, both living in Denmark, my relatives only the distance of the North Sea away, both speak fluent English, have the same religion, similar cultural values and family backgrounds, etc.  Then, let's compare to a case out of another embassy that might be a 46 year old woman with a 24 year old man, she's got kids close to his age, she's nowhere near as attractive as he is, they communicate largely through emojis, have different religions, and the man comes from an impoverished situation.  In what world does it make logical sense for us to have to provide the same amount of "proof"?  Immigration is not an exercise in equality, but should be one in determining one's true motives.  It is the same way that you are acting suspiciously, you are going to catch the attention of the police.  You might be doing nothing wrong, but you are fitting a pattern of behavior that raises red flags.

 

My father also moved to America with zero evidence in the 80s.  All you had to do back then was walk into the immigration office once you landed.  I'm glad to see that that system is not still in place, although its cousin AOS still is.

 

[Eric-Pris 1,607]

2 minutes ago, Coco8 said:

 

You can be a cynic but then again, House elections are every 2 years and the reelection rate is over 80%. If people really hated their representatives they would vote to change them. They don't. 

 

Yes, lobbying can matter, but only in the margins. 

 

I never said that people hate their reps.  Lets be real.  Most people who vote are stupid (as far as knowing what the rep votes for, their stance on key issues, etc).  Most don't know, nor care much, which of their representatives votes for what.  They elect (or re-elect) based on superficial reasons like the way the person looks, how they are perceived in the media, who has the most commercials on TV, etc. Nothing to do with what they actually vote for.  Yes, there are some people who follow the votes and know exactly what their reps vote for.  But they are the minority and get overshadowed by clueless voters.

 

Lobbying is much bigger than you think.

[Going through 5,671]

2 minutes ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

Well, we had zero evidence, but did we need it?  Nope.   However, there are other couples that needed to provide more based on their unique circumstances. I think it is naive to assume that the US government isn't acutely aware that more fraudulent relationships come out of some embassies versus others.  It is also wise for embassies to take into account the circumstance of each individual relationship.  Let's say you have us at the time of petition: 25/26 years old, fairly similar on the scale of looks, both living in Denmark, my relatives only the distance of the North Sea away, both speak fluent English, have the same religion, similar cultural values and family backgrounds, etc.  Then, let's compare to a case out of another embassy that might be a 46 year old woman with a 24 year old man, she's got kids close to his age, she's nowhere near as attractive as he is, they communicate largely through emojis, have different religions, and the man comes from an impoverished situation.  In what world does it make logical sense for us to have to provide the same amount of "proof"?  Immigration is not an exercise in equality, but should be one in determining one's true motives.  It is the same way that you are acting suspiciously, you are going to catch the attention of the police.  You might be doing nothing wrong, but you are fitting a pattern of behavior that raises red flags.

 

My father also moved to America with zero evidence in the 80s.  All you had to do back then was walk into the immigration office once you landed.  I'm glad to see that that system is not still in place, although its cousin AOS still is.

 

I agree with everything you said above except for the possibility of attractiveness of the mate being brought into question.  Only because attractiveness is subjective.

[cysco2015 2]

2 hours ago, Dutchster said:

1) It won't affect USC who wants to petition their spouses or children under 18
2) It won't affect those who are already being petitioned (sister, brother, parent category)
3) IF it goes through, it will take several years to establish
4) I reported this thread to be merged into the Trump immigration policies megathread

How do you know it won't affect those who already being petitioned?

[Going through 5,671]

Just now, cysco2015 said:

How do you know it won't affect those who already being petitioned?

No one knows for sure, of course.  I doubt, though, that hundreds and hundreds of people's pending applications will suddenly be dumped into the garbage en masse for not fitting a policy that never applied to them before.  It *is* possible that the pending applications fitting any new policy will all of a sudden take priority in processing, because it will be quicker to adjudicate.

 

Besides, if this bill does come into affect it will be years down the road.

[Coco8 1,042]

1 minute ago, Eric-Pris said:

I never said that people hate their reps.  Lets be real.  Most people who vote are stupid (as far as knowing what the rep votes for, their stance on key issues, etc).  Most don't know, nor care much, which of their representatives votes for what.  They elect (or re-elect) based on superficial reasons like the way the person looks, how they are perceived in the media, who has the most commercials on TV, etc. Nothing to do with what they actually vote for.  Yes, there are some people who follow the votes and know exactly what their reps vote for.  But they are the minority and get overshadowed by clueless voters.

 

Lobbying is much bigger than you think.

 

"Stupid" people (measure by less educated, less income) are less likely to vote. People who vote are usually more educated and have higher income. 

 

Yes, there is incumbency advantage, but it is not true that people care more about looks than about the performance of the candidate. Looks matter a bit, but what they do in office also matters and more. If looks were the only thing that mattered, a lot of politicians would look like super models and they don't. Perception of the media can be charisma. But also what they say, otherwise, legislators would not care that much to talk on the floor about policies and they would not do press releases with the bills they proposed and how they voted on the floor; and they do tons of that. 

 

 

 

 

[cysco2015 2]

17 minutes ago, Going through said:

No one knows for sure, of course.  I doubt, though, that hundreds and hundreds of people's pending applications will suddenly be dumped into the garbage en masse for not fitting a policy that never applied to them before.  It *is* possible that the pending applications fitting any new policy will all of a sudden take priority in processing, because it will be quicker to adjudicate.

 

Besides, if this bill does come into affect it will be years down the road.

Hope it won't go through because it doesn't make sense 

[Going through 5,671]

2 minutes ago, cysco2015 said:

Hope it won't go through because it doesn't make sense 

Not much of what Trump proposes makes sense.

[cysco2015 2]

This bill does not make sens the merit base system is already in place ,everyone that comes here has a colege degree or at least they being admited to colege that's is one requirements to get a visa, plus you have to have a support once you get to the USA if not your visa will be denied, the only people who are not required to have degree are spouses or derivatives , plus anyone who comes to USA usually they goes straight to find job  to pay their bills because USA doesnt give you $700 to each member of your family or have a free health care like CANADA does ( if you want compare to Canada's system )so basically their is no colecting well fair for people who comes to the USA , and I think people ato the congress are smart and they already know that ,that's why this bill will be died soon .

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

5 hours ago, Eric-Pris said:

Not that he hasn't tried.  But when all of Congress is against you, it's kind of hard to do anything.  He could propose all the changes that @mallafri76 just mentioned.  And they would somehow get shot down.  He's not in the club, so they can't stand him.  He is trying to upset the status quo, and that won't be allowed to happen.  Both sides are happy with the way things are, they are doing well $.  They couldn't care any less about the constituents they are supposed to represent.  Our political system is a failure.  No one person is allowed to make major changes that would actually make the country better because the opposition always has enough politicians in their pockets to block.  An overhaul is needed and coming (probably not in our lifetimes, but at some point people will not accept this nonsense anymore) 

 

When all of Congress is against you (both parties) then there is usually a good reason for it.
Trump does not understand how immigration works so it's not about "he's not in the club that's why they (whoever that is) can't stand him."
My senator does represent my values and that's why I voted for him.
Thank God that no president can turn into a dictator and that is why our political system does work as a democracy with
checks and balances not a banana republic where a leader can do whatever he wants.
Making the country better according to whom ? Your ideas ? Better depends on who is talking, we differ on opinions.
What is needed is for both parties to stop living in the next election with slogan rhetoric and truly work together for the good of the country
but definitely with checks and balances in place.
Thank God this bill won't pass due to these checks and balances. Bring on a reasonable bill and work with the dems not this malarkey.
This bill is an election and campaign talking point to throw the base a bone and it is anti immigrant.
Reform immigration that is logical, fair, with good vetting, efficient and that takes the nonsense out of the system and has some accountability
from the agencies and better training. The system itself is lacking efficiency and has many hiccups.
Backlogging agencies need to be managed better. Then address a specific major change in a by partisan manner to reach
a mutual agreement and implementation. Right now it is Kindergarden show and tell and pom pom rallies.
The intrinsic details of immigration bureaucracy need to be addressed not just head lines and silly "points" to get hurrays without
having a clue on how to implement them in the real world.


 

[Mike and Lily 13]

10 hours ago, mallafri76 said:

Many USC petitioners and immigrants support immigration reform. Just because a USC petitioned their spouse, it doesn't mean they think that the rest of the 30+ family household should be allowed to follow too.

 

I'm an immigrant and I think the US immigration policy is ridiculously lenient. When I moved to the US, it was my choice to do so because I happened to fall in love with a man from another country. Why would that give me the right to then move my entire family over, including siblings with their spouses and kids??? 

 

And don't get me started on the law that says anyone born in America is a USC. That stems from some 250 years ago, when America was founded and to ensure that the British couldn't come back and force people from their land. It's completely outdated and America, along with I think Nigeria, are the only two countries with that law. For every other country on the planet, you need to have a tie to the country to become a citizen, i.e a mum or dad who is a citizen of the country. But I doubt they'll ever change that.

 

So true. My wife immigrated under a K1 visa which is not affected by this bill.

 

The problems started when she tried to get her parents and sister a visitors visa. They were all denied twice.

 

Sister finally gets to come in on a student visa for grad school.

 

OK fine. So when my wife becomes a USC, she petitions both parents for an IR-5 visa so her parents finally can come visit.

 

The problem is they don't speak any English and are bored here. They'd rather live in China but just come here to visit.

 

The second problem is that her sister speaks very good English, is college educated and would love to immigrate here.

 

So in 2013, Mom petitions sister to immigrate under the F2B visa. A 7 year process. (But it's much quicker than F4)

 

So now, Mama has a green card when she would rather have a visitor's visa. Sister now has a visitor's visa when she would rather have a green card. And if sister gets married, her petition is invalidated.

 

I'd give $10K if they could swap. Yeah, I know. It doesn't work that way. So Mama needs to spend more time here than she wants in order to maintain her green card. She's now applying for her 2nd re-entry permit.

 

But the IR-5 has to be one of the most worthless visas we have next to visa lottery and refugees. Most don't work or assimilate (except for housework and babysitting)

I may sound like a hypocrite criticizing a visa that we used, but a points system would make better sense. Sister would have a better shot at her green card.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Mike and Lily