What does this mean? Worried!!! [merged threads]

[Beast7 88]

7 minutes ago, NigeriaorBust said:

 Just with us the family nonsense could bring over a village.   21 siblings  all but the last couple married which would start 19 other families on the chain.   Let the children of those siblings marry  over there  and assuming they don't marry into the same families you get to over 100 families on the immigration train. 

But stopping USC to sponser parents and child above 21 is a bad idea. 

Eliminating sibling category  is still fine

[Going through 5,671]

2 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

How can you stop anyone from sponsering his parents? Or child?

Unfortunately, immigration into another country is not a legal "right" for anyone not born in that country.

 

[Going through 5,671]

7 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

If this happen it will be a worst law passed in U.S history.

Erm....I can think of many others much more worse in all of U.S. history 

[cyclone27 710]

Hopefully it passes this will be a good thing for the US. 

 

 

[Rokarmy1023 8]

4 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

I Hope soo congress will not let this bill to pass. 

This is really insane to stop USC sponsering parents. 

And cancelling petitions for people who have been waiting for more than a decade. 

 

5 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

I Hope soo congress will not let this bill to pass. 

This is really insane to stop USC sponsering parents. 

And cancelling petitions for people who have been waiting for more than a decade. 

I think they will stop petitioning  on year2019, but the previous or pending petitions still considered

[Going through 5,671]

Just now, cyclone27 said:

Hopefully it passes this will be a good thing for the US. 

 

 

I agree with the Diversity Lottery ending---that should have been done away with long ago.

[Beast7 88]

1 minute ago, Rokarmy1023 said:

 

I think they will stop petitioning  on year2019, but the previous or pending petitions still considered

Not really. 

"Shockingly, both bills immediately cancel applications for millions of people who have waited years to become legal immigrants.

[Beast7 88]

1 minute ago, Going through said:

I agree with the Diversity Lottery ending---that should have been done away with long ago.

Yeah sibling and lottery visa elimination still look fine but not parents and child one. 

[Ischnura 285]

4 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

But stopping USC to sponser parents and child above 21 is a bad idea. 

Eliminating sibling category  is still fine

 Why is it a bad idea? In most other countries 21 is not a child, 18 isn't even a child. Why shouldn't grown up people be left to establish/continue to live their own lives where they are instead of piggybacking on a relatives change of circumstance? 

[Illiria 980]

11 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

If this happen it will be a worst law passed in U.S history.

How can you stop anyone from sponsering his parents? Or child?

It never happen in world 

The vast majority of countries do not allow you to petition parents, siblings, or adult children. They assume that once you are an adult you can function without every adult in your family being there.

 

As has been mentioned immigration is a privilege not a right. 

[Beast7 88]

1 minute ago, Ischnura said:

 Why is it a bad idea? In most other countries 21 is not a child, 18 isn't even a child. Why shouldn't grown up people be left to establish/continue to live their own lives where they are instead of piggybacking on a relatives change of circumstance? 

I agree with you on child 18 thing  is fine. 

But what about parents? 

[Going through 5,671]

5 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

Yeah sibling and lottery visa elimination still look fine but not parents and child one. 

Well in terms of the "child"---it really should be used for CHILDREN...and will continue to do so, thankfully.

Personally, I don't consider someone over the age of 21 a "child" anymore, but that's just me, so I can see the reasoning behind eliminating the adult child category.  Most of the adult "children" have spouses and children of their own, at that point---which then means they could end up sponsoring them, too, at some point later on---hence the whole "chain migration" thing again which is what Trump wants to stop.

 

Parents---I think it should be more fine-tuned on the eligibility factor for them instead of cutting it out completely.  Age, health, etc.

But I can see the need to cut it out completely, too.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Going through

[Rokarmy1023 8]

2 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

Not really. 

"Shockingly, both bills immediately cancel applications for millions of people who have waited years to become legal immigrants.

What i mean no more new applications on 2019 for all categories, thats my analysis just to stopapplicants except spouse and minor children. Just an opinion 

[kzielu 1,149]

3 minutes ago, Beast7 said:

I agree with you on child 18 thing  is fine. 

But what about parents? 

What about them ? They're adults, lived for years on their own so what exactly is the problem ?

[Ischnura 285]

1 minute ago, Beast7 said:

I agree with you on child 18 thing  is fine. 

But what about parents? 

 Same reasoning, why would you want to bring over people who already have lives of their own? It's part of being a grown up, moving out and beginning your own life. Nobody needs to be joined at the hip of their immediate family. And marrying/moving here with the intent of eventually bringing over every man and his dog you're related to . . . well I'd be offended if I were the US citizen and that were expected of me before my spouse even had their feet under the table.