LPR's Face Deportation With New Green Card Rule

[Jenn! 918]

we will have to pay every 10 years to renew our greencards if we do not become a citizen, so why should others not have to do the same....

Because they were given green cards with no expiration dates from the get go. They should be grandfathered in.

So if USCIS were to change the rules say in 2 years time so that anyone who files for AOS based on marriage to a USC will automatically get citizenship instead of a Greencard... if they then said it only applies to people who filed after the change you would all be a bit p1ssed off.... you would all want to be included....

Well you have to take the good with the bad... you cant pick and choose what changes should be grandfathered in just because you might benefit from some but not others....

Kez

I don't know why you assume that I would be all pissed off. That's usually how things work. Laws change and people are grandfathered in.

I'm not trying to "pick and choose what changes should be grandfathered in just because you might benefit from some but not others". I'm saying that there should be consistency.

[Caladan 19]

Plus, honestly, what's the incentive to get an updated, more secure green card if there's a risk you'll suddenly be found inadmissible? If I'd received a green card in 1985 for life, and at the time they'd ignored the fact that I had smoked pot in 1983, and now that was threatening to ruin my life, I'd ignore the law as long as possible. Just as matter of pragmatics they should grandfather them in, because otherwise, why would you comply with the law?

[Heracles 417]

If they have been here for that long they could apply for citizenship....

So? Perhaps they don't want citizenship. Its not the goal of every green card applicant to become a US citizen you know. Wanting to live in the USA and wanting to become a US Citizen are two different things.

we will have to pay every 10 years to renew our greencards if we do not become a citizen, so why should others not have to do the same....

Because their Green Cards don't have expiry dates on them? Its pretty pathetic that the US government can just decide that a Green Card that was supposed to be issued permenantly can suddenly become null and void IMHO.

and as for those who are worried because the have committed a crime, well you should have thought about that before you did the crime.... sorry no sympathy for them...

Why? They paid their dues and thought it was all dealt with years ago. Now suddenly they're being deported for minor crimes that may have happened 10-20 years ago, when deportation was not a consequence of being convicted of a crime. Sorry but that is bullshit, if they want to make deportation punishment for crime, fair enough, but applying it retroactively is pure ####### and I have plenty of sympathy for those caught up in this personally.

If you are in someone else's country you abide by their rules. Which also means obeying their laws. As you said they may not want to become citizens which consequently means they really have no say in the matter.

Nothing pathetic about it. A permanent resident is still technically a guest in a country so the government has every right to change the rules as they see fit. The UK, Aus and Canada change their immigration rules all the time. Why would anyone want a country not to change the rules if doing so is in the best interest of the country?? People seem to forget immigration is a privilege and not a right. Especially for people on marriage visas..

Common sense really..

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Dr_LHA 3]

If you are in someone else's country you abide by their rules. As you said they may not want to become citizens which consequently means they really have no say in the matter. Which also means obeying their laws.

Yes, that's fine and all, but can you really agree that punishing someone for breaking the law 20 years ago is a good idea? Especially when 20 years ago that punishment did not exist? I'm not against deporting people for committing crimes, I'm against the retroactive application of that punishment to crimes that happened years ago. I simply don't believe that laws should ever be enacted retroactively like this.

Nothing pathetic about it. A permanent resident is still technically a guest in a country so the government has every right to change the rules as they see fit.

No, permanent residents are not "guests" in the USA, they are permanent residents, just like I am a resident in my own home and not a "guest". The USA has told me that I can live in the USA for the rest of my life, that doesn't make me a "guest" in my view. Sure I can get deported, just like I can get evicted from my house if I don't pay the mortgage, but that doesn't make me a "guest of the bank" in my home does it?

The UK, Aus and Canada change their immigration rules all the time. Why would anyone want a country not to change the rules if doing so is in the best interest of the country??

How is it in the best interest of the country to deport someone for a crime they committed 20 years ago?

[mawilson 2,133]

Besides, I always thought that only the cards expired, the status was forever.

Now they're saying, "there are penalties for not renewing." What does it mean

exactly - that you're not really a permanent resident, unless you agree to fork out

$375 for a bit of plastic?

[desert_fox 32]

good rule!!!

everyone gets a new green card with all the new security features so that they cant be copied or used fraudently. Home Land Security gets to update their database and identify ppl who should have been removed years ago that slipped thru the cracks.

You cant make new criminal laws and enforce them retroactively...against the US Constitution....known as ex-post facto.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Besides, I always thought that only the cards expired, the status was forever.

Now they're saying, "there are penalties for not renewing." What does it mean

exactly - that you're not really a permanent resident, unless you agree to fork out

$375 for a bit of plastic?

This is an interesting point, the fact is that you are a permanent resident regardless of whether your card has expired. However having an expired card is illegal, as you are required to carry a non-expired Green Card on you at all times. I don't know if the punishment for not doing this is a deportation offense however, its just a misdemeanor I believe.

Given that LPRs can get a regular SS card, the only reason to actually have a Green Card is to travel outside of the USA (as they don't need to show it to get a job). I imagine most people facing deportation upon renewing their card are simply just not going to bother renewing their green card. If USCIS really cares about the security of this country they should be issuing replacement green cards to people with expired ones for free (or at minimal cost) and with a guarantee that they won't be deported (i.e. an "amnesty"), otherwise who in their right mind is going to "turn themselves in"?

You cant make new criminal laws and enforce them retroactively...against the US Constitution....known as ex-post facto.

This is exactly what they are doing though.

[Heracles 417]

If you are in someone else's country you abide by their rules. As you said they may not want to become citizens which consequently means they really have no say in the matter. Which also means obeying their laws.

Yes, that's fine and all, but can you really agree that punishing someone for breaking the law 20 years ago is a good idea? Especially when 20 years ago that punishment did not exist? I'm not against deporting people for committing crimes, I'm against the retroactive application of that punishment to crimes that happened years ago. I simply don't believe that laws should ever be enacted retroactively like this.

Nothing pathetic about it. A permanent resident is still technically a guest in a country so the government has every right to change the rules as they see fit.

No, permanent residents are not "guests" in the USA, they are permanent residents, just like I am a resident in my own home and not a "guest". The USA has told me that I can live in the USA for the rest of my life, that doesn't make me a "guest" in my view. Sure I can get deported, just like I can get evicted from my house if I don't pay the mortgage, but that doesn't make me a "guest of the bank" in my home does it?

The UK, Aus and Canada change their immigration rules all the time. Why would anyone want a country not to change the rules if doing so is in the best interest of the country??

How is it in the best interest of the country to deport someone for a crime they committed 20 years ago?

Crimes committed should be on a per case basis. If someone had a DUI 20 years ago fair enough but if they had a rape, child molestation, stalking etc. Yes they should be thrown out immediately.

The whole point of this is to remove obsolete greencards.

[desert_fox 32]

[

You cant make new criminal laws and enforce them retroactively...against the US Constitution....known as ex-post facto.

This is exactly what they are doing though.

How do you figure???

The would only apply as of the day it is effective. They could not make a law that said, "that we are going to punish you for not getting a new card a year ago (when it wasnt a crime)."

[Jenn! 918]

[

You cant make new criminal laws and enforce them retroactively...against the US Constitution....known as ex-post facto.

This is exactly what they are doing though.

How do you figure???

The would only apply as of the day it is effective. They could not make a law that said, "that we are going to punish you for not getting a new card a year ago (when it wasnt a crime)."

They're basically telling people to whom they had granted lifetime LPR status, that they've changed their mind and these people must essentially reapply for LPR status, which will be granted as long as they are in compliance with the new regulations that were established in 1996, 20 years after they had received their LPR status.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

They are not having to re-apply for LPR status they are only having to get a new greencard....

Kez

[Jenn! 918]

They are not having to re-apply for LPR status they are only having to get a new greencard....

Kez

If their status can be revoked when they get the new greencard then there is no difference.

[desert_fox 32]

They're basically telling people to whom they had granted lifetime LPR status, that they've changed their mind and these people must essentially reapply for LPR status, which will be granted as long as they are in compliance with the new regulations that were established in 1996, 20 years after they had received their LPR status.

I guess that I agree with what you are saying.

No different if a state is going to issue new drivers licenses (which they are going to do, in order to be within the new Federal REAL-ID Act), that your old license will not be valid after some certain date. I would prob agree with you that this is what Homeland Security is doing...

...and should the state find out that ppl have drivers licenses that were legal when they were issued, but are they are inelgible for a license...then so be it..

EWI's will not be able to get a drivers lice4nse after the REAL-ID Act kicks in.

Edited August 31, 2007 by desert_fox

[Heracles 417]

[

You cant make new criminal laws and enforce them retroactively...against the US Constitution....known as ex-post facto.

This is exactly what they are doing though.

I see what you're saying. That if the crime was committed under the old visa rules they cannot be held accountable.

What a great system.. Don't tell me this is the ####### we are trying to implement in Iraq..

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Lovetoteach 53]

Does that mean they will also go through the FBI checks?