To carry or not to carry.. that is the question...

[Thomas-n-Elena 0]

I don't carry mine with me. I am often outside on my patio or on my daily walks without it. It's a pretty dumb rule. To carry it with you at all times is pretty vague. Are you supposed to carry it into the shower with you too? When they come up with a microchip greencard that they can implant, then I'll carry it all the time.

Ummm I think the government spends too much time in my life on a daily basis the last thing I want is for them to start tracking me, first the green card, then the national id card, then we are mindless automatons marching to war over silly things.

[Mags 112]

The simple fact is that if you don't carry your GC it is classed as a misdemeanor and that could ultimately result in deportation.

We can argue for and against carrying it but, ultimately, it IS against the law and no one here should advocate anyone breaking said law either.

Thank you.

[Lovetoteach 53]

If and when I finally get my green card, I'll be carrying it, not just because it's the law but because I would have fought so hard to get it. It will be a constant reminder of the strength and courage I have had to find throughout my journey and a reminder of those who have supported me.

Shona

Edited July 21, 2007 by shona

[TinTin and Samby 11]

Madam,

What a long-winded retort that has no substantive contribution, save for what you believe the laws to be.

Regardless of what you feel, regardless of your interpretations, regardless of your beleifs[sic], regardless of what you deem may constitute dangerous from things learned past, the only danger here is not complying with very clear instructions that requires you to carry "the card". There is no abstract to that statement, madam.

Beleif it or not.

Well, what a suprise. A reasonable, well thought out personal view that does not denigrate or demean any other persons perspective or belief is summarily attacked. I am starting to understand the growing number of posters on VJ who have either left or beome more silent due to the escalating Judgemental tone of posts here.

Sigh..... It is always those with the most closed of minds that choose to terminate debate and discussion with personal attacks. You clearly missed the entire point. Wouldn't it be nice if life was as neat and tidy and binary as you would like it to be. But alas, that is why we have an entire judicial system in this country - to INTERPRET laws - all of which sprang from some english words on a piece of paper that were put there to try to best capture the SPIRIT of the law being promulgated and which will always have a small minded constituency that can not fathom that the law does not mean explicity what their own reading and interpretation of those english words are.

Regarding those who contemplate "what the big deal is" in carrying their actual I-551. I believe it has been already stated by others, but put succintly, it is the corresponding effort, time and cost to replace this important document should it be lost, stolen or otherwise damaged.

Warm Regards,

Samby

[Dr_LHA 3]

I don't believe that a photocopy is good enough for any other proof of id/nationality/residency, so I'm not sure why people are so convinced that it would be good enough for a Green Card. The Green Card has a great deal of anti-forgery technology on it, it's there for a reason. If CBP officers and police accepted a photocopy of a card then that would defeat the purpose of such technology, as a photocopy is easy to forge.

The risk you take not carrying your green card around with you is a small one, I'll admit, but I'm definitely in the "don't see the big deal" camp. I carry around a lot of things on me that would suck to lose, and would cost me a lot more than a Green Card. The main difference between those things and the GC however is that its not a misdemeanor not to carry them.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[Ladylethal 12]

Only times when I'm not carrying my GC outside the house, is when I go for my jogging, 'cus then I go out without pockets and carry only my keys.

[L&M 4]

It would be great if a photocopy would work for your "on person" requirement but it doesn't. We we would all like for many things regarding immigration to be different, like processing times, communication, fees, and more. When we read the requirements for the AOS we might not want to go through the effort to find all our tax returns, get letters from employers, and do everything else it requires but we do because it is REQUIRED. So, it is the LAW to carry your Greencard with you. That's a requirement so follow it or deal with the consequences no matter how remote a chance there is that you will have a problem.

It's the law to follow the speed limit too. Most of us will speed at least 5 miles more than the posted limit and never think anything about it. It's unlikely you will get pulled over and get a ticket for this infraction, but it is a possibiliyt bc that's the law. So, if you don't want to take your GC with you everywhere you go keep in mind what you may be risking and that getting bailed out of jail may cost more than a replacement card anyway.

[rebeccajo 14]

Not doing so is a crime, and if caught, could result in the person being ... at the minimum detained while their identity is verified. At the worst, they may be convicted of the misdemeanor. How likely is it to happen? Not likely, but that isn't the point...

Stating the possible consequences is no different than saying 'If you steal money from a bank, you could possibly go to jail'. There are always consequences for people's actions.

This is actually a very good point. Equally, one possible consequence of not filing for AOS before the 90 days of one's K-1 visa expiration may also cause one to be deported, but it's never talked about on here. People repeatedly advise others to not worry about filing later. It's a remote consequence--probably just as remote as a random Joe being asked for his GC out of the blue by an authority figure--but it's given as gospel on here all the time.

To not carry a GC vs. to be out of legal status, let's see, which is a greater cause of concern? I'd rather be issued a misdemeanor for not carrying a GC rather than be deported for being "out of status".

Oh for heavens sake. Here we go again.

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?

First of all, if you have been issued a greencard, you HAVE a status. Your greencard is proof of that status. (One of the things your STATUS grants you is DUE PROCESS of law. Hence, had the car thief had his greencard on him, if any of the same processes normally afforded a US citizen were denied to him - his case could be thrown out of court. I'm gonna guess out loud that will probably happen anyway but if had been carrying his documentation then law enforcement would more than likely have taken less of a 'gestapo' attitude with him.)

Secondly, even if you DO file for your adjustment prior to the expiration of your I94 issued by virtue of your K1 visa, you DON'T have a status. Anymore than you have a status if you file AFTER the expiration of that I94. There is NO LEGAL CATEGORY in immigration law for petitioners for adjustment. Period. End of story. No discussion. No other interpretation of 'the gospel'. NOA1 for I485 won't hold up in a court of law any better than no NOA1 for I485. There is no 'proof' for someone who has filed for adjustment because there is no LEGALLY DEFINED STATUS for those people.

Thirdly, The PROOF of being 'legal' in this country (prior to issuance of the greencard) is the stamped K1 visa in the passport - even if it's expired. LEGAL has to do with entry - not when you filed for your adjustment.

Edited July 22, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Tom_Jim 40]

Anymore than you have a status if you file AFTER the expiration of that I94. There is NO LEGAL CATEGORY in immigration law for petitioners for adjustment. Period. End of story. No discussion.

There is no 'proof' for someone who has filed for adjustment because there is no LEGALLY DEFINED STATUS for those people.

Just a correction here. Section 245A(e)(2) of the INA provides as follows:

The Attorney General shall provide that in the case of an alien who presents a prima facie aplication for adjustment of status under subsection (a) during the application period, and until a final determination on the application has been made in accordance with this section, the alien---

(A) may not be deported, and

(B) shall be granted authorization to engage in employment in the United States and be provided an "employment authorized" endorsement or other appropriate work permit.

Immigrants who have a pending adjustment of status application with the service are therefore under the jurisdiction of INA Section 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255 (a)

[Tom_Jim 40]

OK. That was annoying. The smiley "B)"

was actually supposed to be: (B )

[rebeccajo 14]

Duly noted, latoslatos. But that's still not a 'category' or 'status'. Hairsplitting, I know - but accurate nonetheless.

Sir Lancelot continues to speak of being 'out of status' and being 'illegal' as if they were one and the same thing - they are not.

Filing for adjustment grants you certain privileges and protections, but being a legal entrant married to a USC - even if adjustment is not filed - does as well.

Edited July 22, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Nancy2015 2]

I prefer to carry all my documents with me - green card, passport, driver's license, all my credit cards, medical and dental insurance cards etc. Having all this on me at all times makes me feel better.

[elgringo 0]

We just received the welcome letter today after being approved on July 18th.

The 3rd paragraph of the letter says:

"We will soon mail you a new Permanent Resident Card. You should receive it within the next 3 weeks. You can use it to show your new status. When you receive your new card you must cary (their typo, not mine) it with you at all times if you are 18 or older. It is the law."

I think that pretty much speaks for itself. I think not carrying it would be sort of like a US citizen not carrying their driver's license. It doesnt really matter unless you get pulled over, but if you do, you are kind of screwed, so it makes better sense to always carry it.....

[maya62 7]

I wonder if there is any documented situation where someone was detained for only having a photocopy of their greencard on them? I mean treated differently than they would've been if they'd had the actual greencard on them.

Anybody?

We went to Staples and had copies of my husband's and son's greencards made and laminated. I originally made color copies of them on the self-service color copier, but when I asked an employee of Staples to laminate them, she refused. She said they (the staff) are not allowed to laminate color copies (or exact sized copies) of greencards.... they must be B&W and slightly larger than the originals. She said lots of people make requests for laminated copies of greencards, and that is how their staff is supposed to respond to the requests.

My husband works outside all day, and is in the woods a lot. The risk of losing or damaging his greencard is just too high. All the other cards in his wallet look like they've been through the war. I am as concerned about the card getting damaged (in which case all that fancy stuff they have embedded in the card wouldn't work anyhow), as I am about it getting lost in the back of beyond. It is a risk game, and I think the risk of it getting lost or damaged is much higher than the risk of him being detained because he doesn't have the original greencard on him.

That's just us. We'll take our chances. I agree with the poster who said he/she thought carrying a copy, and having the original produced readily in time of need, was in keeping with the spirit of the law. I'm not advocating anyone else do this, just explaining our take on the whole thing.

Best wishes,

Maya

[Dr_LHA 3]

I wonder if there is any documented situation where someone was detained for only having a photocopy of their greencard on them? I mean treated differently than they would've been if they'd had the actual greencard on them.

Anybody?

I don't know - want to be the first to try it?