Reuters:Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change

[Mrsjackson 300]

23 minutes ago, RLA said:

Maybe they could, but that's beside the point.  USCIS's decision hurts Americans: the taxpayers or the family or, most likely, both.  That's why I think the rule should be revised so that it considers the immigrant's earning potential, not just the sponsor's. 

Especially since statistically speaking the vast majority of immigrants earn more and more as time goes on. 

[treppenwitz 78]

39 minutes ago, RLA said:

Maybe they could, but that's beside the point.  USCIS's...

DOS not USCIS

39 minutes ago, RLA said:

decision hurts Americans: the taxpayers or the family or, most likely, both.

Not necessarily; the majority of families in similar scenarios have options. As shown in the videos, that living situation is nothing new. Both my parents were deported and I crossed daily to school since the age of 7. Same with my older siblings, distant cousins, some of my classmates and best friends. ~57% of the students in the Nogales, AZ public school district live where I grew up in Nogales, Mexico. Most of us are now working good careers in the US as electricians, entrepeneurs, engineers, hedge fund mangers, HVAC techs, park rangers, professors, etc.

Edited April 16, 2019 by treppenwitz

[Dashinka 24,494]

6 hours ago, Mrsjackson said:

Especially since statistically speaking the vast majority of immigrants earn more and more as time goes on. 

The statistics posted in the article you linked are fairly dated and used fairly small sample sizes, but I can see the idea that an immigrant starting with 0 income in the US would experience some growth over time.  That being said, it really isn't the case with the OP article.  This guy was in the US for 14 years and was still only going to be making around $38k, so he may have had income growth to start with, but it may have stabilized.

 

Regardless, here is the report that was the basis for the income growth comment contained in the article you linked.

 

http://ftp.iza.org/dp631.pdf 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

6 hours ago, Mrsjackson said:

Especially since statistically speaking the vast majority of immigrants earn more and more as time goes on. 

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim? 

[Dashinka 24,494]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim? 

See my post above. 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

See my post above. 

 

Yeah sorry I was going down the list and saw your post after I already commented. Thank you sir for the information.

[The_Empyrean 733]

This reminds me a picture i saw some time ago, where they pictured a woman running away with kids, around tear gas. Then they released another picture looking at Mexico's side where the crowd is throwing bricks etc and Border Control is just standing at the border.

Nothing more than just creating a fabricated outrage for no reason. People on this forum alone get denied visas all the time, no one creates news stories and image "satan spawns at USCIS denies a visa".
Not full details available here though to say anything. But if the family had a past of taking govt money, cosponsor shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. Denial here is right imo. 

i'm an immigrant, my wife's an immigrant, and i still strongly believe that immigration laws should be even stricter than they are now.

[BRP2019 5]

To funny some comments on here income thresholds are to low for the spouse to prove on the affidavit of support. Remember alot of ppl that came to this country came with nothing . And made a better life for themselves . Person like me I am use to making 80 k plus a year In Canada. state where my wife lives the wages are alot lower than what I am use to .  To make 60 k a year somone needs to make at lest 30 a hr 40 hr a week it's not  going to happen for a majority of ppl . 

[Mrsjackson 300]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The statistics posted in the article you linked are fairly dated and used fairly small sample sizes, but I can see the idea that an immigrant starting with 0 income in the US would experience some growth over time.  That being said, it really isn't the case with the OP article.  This guy was in the US for 14 years and was still only going to be making around $38k, so he may have had income growth to start with, but it may have stabilized.

 

Regardless, here is the report that was the basis for the income growth comment contained in the article you linked.

 

http://ftp.iza.org/dp631.pdf 

Oh no I think the man in the article was rightfully denied. I drifted into a more general discussion. 

[Mrsjackson 300]

3 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim? 

Why yes I do

[theresaL 408]

1 hour ago, Mrsjackson said:

Oh no I think the man in the article was rightfully denied. I drifted into a more general discussion. 

I realized this is what you were doing. However, the article focuses on a specific case intended to persuade the readers that the current administrations policies are bad, unfair, mean, unjust, etc.  In other words, Trump=bad, anti-immigrant, hates Mexicans, etc. Unfortunately the author chose a case that actually supports the change in policies, but I doubt the author realizes that because of their ignorance on the subject.

 

Here are some of the things I have my students consider when doing article analysis of a controversial topic:

• what is the topic?
• is the topic stated or implied?
• what is the authors purpose?
• is there any bias?
• does the author present enough information to make an informed decision? (especially true for opinion/persuasive arguments)
• does the author present any supporting information and is that effective?
• do you agree or disagree with authors position?
• is this article effective/did it attain the goal/purpose of the author?

 

[Mrsjackson 300]

5 minutes ago, theresaL said:

I realized this is what you were doing. However, the article focuses on a specific case intended to persuade the readers that the current administrations policies are bad, unfair, mean, unjust, etc.  In other words, Trump=bad, anti-immigrant, hates Mexicans, etc. Unfortunately the author chose a case that actually supports the change in policies, but I doubt the author realizes that because of their ignorance on the subject.

 

Here are some of the things I have my students consider when doing article analysis of a controversial topic:

• what is the topic?
• is the topic stated or implied?
• what is the authors purpose?
• is there any bias?
• does the author present enough information to make an informed decision? (especially true for opinion/persuasive arguments)
• does the author present any supporting information and is that effective?
• do you agree or disagree with authors position?
• is this article effective/did it attain the goal/purpose of the author?

 

The article was really poorly written.

[RLA 323]

11 hours ago, treppenwitz said:

[The decision hurts Americans: the taxpayers or the family or, most likely, both.] 

Not necessarily; the majority of families in similar scenarios have options. 

But their preferred option has been taken away, which does hurt them.  

 

11 hours ago, treppenwitz said:

Both my parents were deported and I crossed daily to school since the age of 7. 

So your family didn't pay any taxes in the U.S. while you were still using tax-funded services?  Doesn't sound like U.S. taxpayers benefited from your parents' deportation.   I doubt they will benefit from Arturo Balbino's deportation, either.   I guess the family wiIl find a way and make it work somehow.  My point is that even though the rules were followed I can't really see anybody who's going to benefit from this decision.  That's a pretty good indicator that the rules should be revised.  

[treppenwitz 78]

2 minutes ago, RLA said:

Doesn't sound like U.S. taxpayers benefited from your parents' deportation.

That is true in the short term. But we are now taxpayers with good US incomes as adults. Check out the second video I linked; it repeatedly makes the point that it benefits taxpayers in the long term.

7 minutes ago, RLA said:

But their preferred option has been taken away, which does hurt them.

That is the way of life. Immigration is a priviledge not a right.

[theresaL 408]

12 minutes ago, Mrsjackson said:

The article was really poorly written.

Yes it was, but very easy to analyze as there is really no substance to it. I googled the author and she is a San Francisco based writer for Reuters. So not exactly unbiased in her opinions, more propagandist than journalist. This is the result when emotion is the driving factor.

Edited April 16, 2019 by theresaL