Permanent Residency for US Citizen's Parents who reside abroad

[Olivier de Nimes 12]

Hi There,

 

if the intended stay is 2 months per year, coming as a tourist is the most logical option.

You cannot be considered a resident if you stay 2 month per year, even less a citizen.

All you need to know is here :

http://www.ustraveldocs.com/ro/ro-niv-visawaiverinfo.asp

Good luck

[Crazy Cat 42,322]

Show that you have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400.

That means actually present on US soil.....It does not mean "maintain residency".  I see no way citizenship in 5 years would be approved.

[WeGuyGal 1,052]

1 hour ago, Calikitkat said:

Hi,

I understand that a US permanent resident cannot leave the US for more than one year. Is that one year at a time? Or one year in total? For example, if in the future, I were to obtain permanent residency for a family member who is currently employed abroad, could they maintain their US permanent residency if they spent only 2 months a year in the US? Would they still be eligible for citizenship after 5 years from issue date of the green card, even though they only spent 2 months out of each of those 5 years in the US? Thank you kindly. 

No, and No

 

Why would someone get a green card when they don't live in the US?  And shouldn't be eligible for US citizenship if they're basically being tourists.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

1 hour ago, Calikitkat said:

Hi,

I understand that a US permanent resident cannot leave the US for more than one year. Is that one year at a time? Or one year in total? For example, if in the future, I were to obtain permanent residency for a family member who is currently employed abroad, could they maintain their US permanent residency if they spent only 2 months a year in the US? Would they still be eligible for citizenship after 5 years from issue date of the green card, even though they only spent 2 months out of each of those 5 years in the US? Thank you kindly. 

No, and no. You need to spend more time in than out of the US to keep your green card, and there are both physical and continuous residence requirements for naturalization which others have posted.. What would be the point of a green card for a person who didn’t want to live here?

also you do realize that a green card holder is obligated to file tax returns with the IRS on worldwide income, right?

Edited March 16, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

1 hour ago, Calikitkat said:

 

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the replies, guys. I do not have my naturalization interview scheduled yet. But the website says I will have it by August this year. I am happy that if they file the I-130 they do not have to do the Adjustment of Status as well once they get here. I think I will postpone the application for them until my mom decides to retire though. Hopefully, Trump won't get his way of ending chain immigration. Seems pretty ruthless to me to not allow people to be with their families once they settle in a new country. 

 

I have not researched medical costs. We are generally a very healthy family, grandparents and great grandparents have lived close to 100 years old without needing any serious medical attention. So I am hoping it won't be the case but you never know. How does it work with the social security though? Are they entitled to social security as permanent residents? Or if they gain citizenship after 5 years?

You might want to glance at this current thread elsewhere in this forum about healthcare costs http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/665752-health-insurance/

Old people get old, and caring for them gets costly. Living to 100 could be very costly indeed in the US.

 

they are not entitled to social security at all if they haven’t contributed to it for 10 years, which they won’t have ... basically they (or you) will need to be able to entirely self-fund their retirement including their medical costs.  The US is not a welfare state and as Conor Lamb and others point out, so-called “entitlements” are actually earned...

See this and related links on the page  for the short version http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/SocialSecurity_basics.moneymag/index4.htm

 

re your comment about chain migration: I’m no trump fan at all but no, it’s not ruthless. The US is the only country in the world who allows this kind of extended family migration. The blunt truth is that if you make the decision to move to a different country and leave your family behind, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the country you chose to move to reunite your family. And from an economic point of view it is a huge drag on growth potential to be importing retired people rather than young, educated, skilled and productive people, which is where Canada and Australia get it right.

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[Ryan H 3,834]

~~~Similar topics merged.~~~

[Calikitkat 16]

1 hour ago, WeGuyGal said:

What the link says and your mom's situation are different. If your mom would be working and living overseas, the green card is not for her. Better off not playing games with CBP.  Again, green card = permanent resident. Emphasis on permanent. 

Not trying to play any games. Thus, I am researching what is the law on this.

[Calikitkat 16]

43 minutes ago, Olivier de Nimes said:

Hi There,

 

if the intended stay is 2 months per year, coming as a tourist is the most logical option.

You cannot be considered a resident if you stay 2 month per year, even less a citizen.

All you need to know is here :

http://www.ustraveldocs.com/ro/ro-niv-visawaiverinfo.asp

Good luck

 

43 minutes ago, missileman said:

Show that you have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing Form N-400.

That means actually present on US soil.....It does not mean "maintain residency".  I see no way citizenship in 5 years would be approved.

Thanks guys, I am just doing research on the legal guidelines for this. 

[Calikitkat 16]

10 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

You might want to glance at this current thread elsewhere in this forum about healthcare costs http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/665752-health-insurance/

Old people get old, and caring for them gets costly. Living to 100 could be very costly indeed in the US.

 

they are not entitled to social security at all if they haven’t contributed to it for 10 years, which they won’t have ... basically they (or you) will need to be able to entirely self-fund their retirement including their medical costs.  The US is not a welfare state and as Conor Lamb and others point out, so-called “entitlements” are actually earned...

See this and related links on the page  for the short version http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/SocialSecurity_basics.moneymag/index4.htm

 

re your comment about chain migration: I’m no trump fan at all but no, it’s not ruthless. The US is the only country in the world who allows this kind of extended family migration. The blunt truth is that if you make the decision to move to a different country and leave your family behind, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences of that. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of the country you chose to move to reunite your family. And from an economic point of view it is a huge drag on growth potential to be importing retired people rather than young, educated, skilled and productive people, which is where Canada and Australia get it right.

 

If you want the young, educated, skilled and productive people to come to the US, they'll want to bring their families. I am young, educated, skilled and productive and my parents coming here would be my responsibility and not the country's. Plus, them living here means they will also be consumers here. They are bringing money they made in Europe, into the US. And leaving these money here by paying for housing and other products and services here. So it really is beneficial for the US economy that my parents come here and spend their money here. Since I need to prove I have enough money to bring them here, they wouldn't even be eligible for welfare I don't think and they wouldn't need it. Coming from Europe to the US just to be on welfare is counter-intuitive I think. If it's welfare you are looking for, no need to move across the ocean. You can find it closer to home, like in the UK. 

[WeGuyGal 1,052]

36 minutes ago, Calikitkat said:

If you want the young, educated, skilled and productive people to come to the US, they'll want to bring their families. I am young, educated, skilled and productive and my parents coming here would be my responsibility and not the country's. Plus, them living here means they will also be consumers here. They are bringing money they made in Europe, into the US. And leaving these money here by paying for housing and other products and services here. So it really is beneficial for the US economy that my parents come here and spend their money here. Since I need to prove I have enough money to bring them here, they wouldn't even be eligible for welfare I don't think and they wouldn't need it. Coming from Europe to the US just to be on welfare is counter-intuitive I think. If it's welfare you are looking for, no need to move across the ocean. You can find it closer to home, like in the UK. 

"Their families".. yes. One could argue a family unit is spouse and kids, which by US definitions could exclude siblings and parents.  And fyi, social security would be our country's (US) responsibility. 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

2 hours ago, Calikitkat said:

If you want the young, educated, skilled and productive people to come to the US, they'll want to bring their families. . 

Yet no other country who offers skills based visas (Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc and including the UK under the old HSMP) allows people carte blanche to bring their parents and siblings, but they are still very successful in attracting the kind of immigrants they want. And Japan is a perfect example that no matter how rich your old people are, the country cannot grow with too many aged. I can point you to plenty of academic research on the link between growth and demographics, including the effect of immigration, if you’d like.

 

I’m glad to hear that your question about whether your parents would qualify for social security was just out of interest and that you all plan to fund everything yourselves, of course after you’ve done the requisite research. Certainly much more farsighted than many of the shellshocked after-the-fact posts we get on here, as someone else pointed out.

Edited March 17, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

2 hours ago, Calikitkat said:

If it's welfare you are looking for, no need to move across the ocean. You can find it closer to home, like in the UK. 

Oh and I’m kinda amused to see the Eastern Europeans do actually think like that, I thought it was just scare tactics from the pro-Brexit lot! 

[Calikitkat 16]

17 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Oh and I’m kinda amused to see the Eastern Europeans do actually think like that, I thought it was just scare tactics from the pro-Brexit lot! 

There are Eastern Europeans living on welfare in Britain as well as British people living on welfare. And like the royal British family who's been living on taxpayers money for so long. And so many American-born citizens who live on welfare in the US. There are people of all nationalities living on welfare all over the world. And the place where you are born doesn't make you better than anybody. We are all human and we all have the same rights. And UK can Brexit all they want. It won't stop immigration and globalization. It just creates uneccesary bureaucracy and it's a waste of time. 

 

And what do you propose doing about the ageing population? Should we just kill them off because they are bad for the economy?

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

1 hour ago, Calikitkat said:

 

 

And what do you propose doing about the ageing population? Should we just kill them off because they are bad for the economy?

Nope, like I said there’s plenty of research for you to look at on demographics, sure you don’t want some references? One particularly good way to address an aging population is to offset the effects of aging with immigration policies that attract young, skilled, productive people. (Production is more important than just spending, because it’s sustainable. Continually drawing down retirement savings isn’t). Of course those young productive working people are not just earning and spending; they are also paying taxes (so helping maintain infrastructure, pay for schools, etc) and contributing to social security, thus helping the people in society who do need help funding retirement or, in the US in particular, medical costs via Medicare.  Social security schemes anywhere, whether generous like Britain or less so like the US, can only work if there are continued contributions coming in. This is why so many countries where aging is becoming an issue are looking at things like extending retirement ages, cutting pensions etc - they need to redress the increasing imbalance between what is coming in and what is going out. (So this another way to address the problem of aging, obviously less beneficial for the elderly.)

 

 One thing definitely not to do is to have an immigration policy that results in more elderly than young people entering the country. 

 

PS you totally missed my point on brexit

Edited March 17, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[Boiler 46,123]

There was a lady earlier today looking to retire and move to Florida and qas querying the Insurance Premiums she had been quoted, $800 pm, so multiply that by 2 and then 12, you say they have  their own resources, pensions and savings, are they ready to pay that?

 

Immigrating when old is only for the very poor or very wealthy.