Trump admin immigration changes? [merged threads]

[KMG 124]

32 minutes ago, TiffAndMike said:

I honestly think that his primary focus upon entering office is going to be on closing the border and getting all these violent criminals, cartels and gang members out of this country. He will implement the "Remain in Mexico" policy again.  All of  Biden's "Parole in Place" policies will cease to exists. 

 

He will either try to get countries that refuse to let us deport their citizens to take them back or he will just flat out deny their visas.

 

He eventually will attempt to end family chain migration, abolish certain types of visas and change the law on "birthright citizenship" by requiring at least one parent to be either a USC or LPR. 

 

Most countries actually do require at least one parent to be a naturalized citizen in order for their child to be granted citizenship of that country. 

 

I don't believe that those of us who have immediate family or fiance cases will be affected negatively. They just raised the fees on those this year so I doubt they will raise them again.

 

I think if anything, our cases will actually speed up drastically since they won't be in a rush to issue work permits to everyone under the sun with false asylum claims. 

 

USCIS is primarily fee funded by those of us who go through the legal channels. There are currently quite a few "fee waivers" right now. I'm pretty sure that most of them will go away as they should.  

 

The current backlog that we have is due to a lot of the immigration policies Biden put into place and not requiring fees for them. 

 

Think about it, if USCIS isn't getting money from certain petitions, then they have no money to hire more staff to process those petitions.  As a result, USCIS has to allocate the bulk of their staff to process those petitions while the backlog of paid petitions keeps growing longer and longer. 

 

When I first applied for my husband to come to the states in December 2023, the current wait time was 11 months. If the wait time would of stayed consistent,  I'd be getting my approval any day now if I didn't already have it. 

 

Evey single time Biden created a new parole in place scheme, I saw my wait time continue to climb up. It is now sitting at 15.5 months! 6 1/2 extra months than it was when I filed.  

 

I actually voted for Trump as I saw him as my only hope to get my husband here with me sometime in the next year.  With Kamala, I'd probably be waiting another 4 or 5 years.  

I am with you on this.  My school is being generous with giving me more time to tell them whether or not I am leaving at the end of this school year. (I work at an international school in my husband's country).  We want to at least wait until the I130 is approved before I leave.  The 2nd half of the journey should be quick enough to leave by the summer, but not if more time is added to the I130. This seems incredibly unfair- my husband has no record, no overstays on his visitor visa and we do not forsee any problems getting his approval.  

 

Bottom line, USC spouses are supposed to take priority over all other cases.  This whole process should take a matter of months- not years.

[Meingandu 3]

Since trump taking office. Does anyone think he will change or revoke the birth citizenship of children’s born to undocumented aliens or people without status in the United States and amend the 14th Amendment?

Edited Thursday at 10:53 PM by Meingandu

[pushbrk 12,859]

23 minutes ago, Meingandu said:

Since trump taking office. Does anyone think he will change or revoke the birth citizenship of children’s born to undocumented aliens or people without status in the United States and amend the 14th Amendment?

A constitutional amendment is the only thing that can  end birthright citizenship.  Even that would not revoke the citizenship of somebody already a US Citizen.  First the amendment must pass congress, and then it must be ratified by 38 States.  3/4 of the States.  This whole idea of ending birthright citizenship is just  part of the nonsense put forward in the last election cycle.  Pretty much this whole discussion is about such nonsense.

[Meingandu 3]

On 11/6/2024 at 2:07 PM, MDP said:

Didn't Trump have to file an I-130 to get Melania here? Just saying....

He is also planning to revoke birth citizenships for children’s born to immigrants that will take away melania and trumps son’s citizenship 😂😂

[Meingandu 3]

1 hour ago, pushbrk said:

A constitutional amendment is the only thing that can  end birthright citizenship.  Even that would not revoke the citizenship of somebody already a US Citizen.  First the amendment must pass congress, and then it must be ratified by 38 States.  3/4 of the States.  This whole idea of ending birthright citizenship is just  part of the nonsense put forward in the last election cycle.  Pretty much this whole discussion is about such nonsense.

Correct. Even if it makes through senate and house it may not get votes from states. And even if somehow they do it can be challenged in court by that time he will be out of office hopefully. 

[pushbrk 12,859]

1 hour ago, Meingandu said:

Correct. Even if it makes through senate and house it may not get votes from states. And even if somehow they do it can be challenged in court by that time he will be out of office hopefully. 

Who is in office will not change anything once it passes the House and Senate.....AND....it will take much longer than four years.  The last amendment "ERA" took decades.  This is really a non-issue.  Most countries do not have birthright citizenship anyway.  No such change can be retroactive anyway.

[Ban Hammer 13,325]

1 hour ago, Meingandu said:

Correct. Even if it makes through senate and house it may not get votes from states. And even if somehow they do it can be challenged in court by that time he will be out of office hopefully. 

to put things in perspective:  According to the United Nations, there are 195 recognised countries in the world.  Currently, 33 nations (plus two territories) around the world have jus soli, or unrestricted, birthright citizenship. or just under 17% of those countries.
so it's not really an outlandish idea.  the usa and canada are the only two for the most developed countries in the world to have this.

[Nous Eb 122]

7 hours ago, Meingandu said:

He is also planning to revoke birth citizenships for children’s born to immigrants that will take away melania and trumps son’s citizenship 😂😂

 

How? Barron is a natural born citizen both through being born on US soil and his USC father. His mother, at the time, was an LPR who had already filed her N-400, obtaining her citizenship a few months after his birth. That is not even remotely close to someone born to two illegal immigrants having an anchor baby, or two communists on a visa having an anchor baby, like Kamala Harris' parents (if she even is born in the USA, I have strong doubts). Also, 'taking away' means ending the practice from henceforth, not taking away citizenship from people who have been citizens for years. Where do you even get that idea?

Edited Friday at 08:43 AM by Nous Eb

[Crazy Cat 41,770]

11 hours ago, Meingandu said:

He is also planning to revoke birth citizenships for children’s born to immigrants that will take away melania and trumps son’s citizenship 😂😂

That just isn't true.

[KMG 124]

13 hours ago, Meingandu said:

He is also planning to revoke birth citizenships for children’s born to immigrants that will take away melania and trumps son’s citizenship 😂😂

Please research before posting nonsense like this.

[randomstairs 300]

13 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

it's not really an outlandish idea

It is an outlandish idea because it proposes amending the 14th Amendment, which provides for a lot more than just the birthright citizenship. In fact, it may be one of the most fundamental parts of the post-Civil War Constitution. 

[randomstairs 300]

7 hours ago, Nous Eb said:

like Kamala Harris' parents (if she even is born in the USA, I have strong doubts)

This might be a ToS violation. You can't just accuse someone of lying about the most fundamental aspects of their lives just because you don't like them. Unless you provide strong evidence for Harris's not being born in the US, this is blatant slander, and, at the very least, inflammatory language.   

[Boiler 45,434]

17 minutes ago, randomstairs said:

This might be a ToS violation. You can't just accuse someone of lying about the most fundamental aspects of their lives just because you don't like them. Unless you provide strong evidence for Harris's not being born in the US, this is blatant slander, and, at the very least, inflammatory language.   

What would you describe this

 

 

[Crazy Cat 41,770]

2 hours ago, randomstairs said:

This might be a ToS violation. You can't just accuse someone of lying about the most fundamental aspects of their lives just because you don't like them. Unless you provide strong evidence for Harris's not being born in the US, this is blatant slander, and, at the very least, inflammatory language.   

If you think a TOS violation has occurred, report the post.   The Mod Team evaluates all reports.

Edited Friday at 06:35 PM by Crazy Cat

[randomstairs 300]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

What would you describe this

 

 

Irrelevant?