telso

A friend did DCF a year ago in Montreal. Have the USC email the Montreal consulate today with a subject line like "Direct Consular Filing -- Recent job offer in US". Explain the situation briefly, no need to attach any documents yet. They should respond within a few business days asking for him to submit scans of the first documents (I-130 (start filling out this weekend), job offer letter, US Passport, etc). Once it's accepted to do DCF, the USC can move (or wait, but not move before acceptance), but the Canadian must wait until approval. In my friend's case they got an appointment within a few weeks, with the USC and maybe the immigrant (I forget) needing to attend in Montreal (no way around this). They should then approve the I-130 after the meeting in Montreal, and then the process is like all I-130 cases, they will put the Canadian in line for a visa interview (again in Montreal, just the Canadian attends), usually in a few months. If you follow the steps carefully on VJ, and get your documents (e.g. birth certificate, any police certificates from other countries (but wait for the Canadian ones until asked), etc.) prepared beforehand (check the Canada forum), you could be moving in 3-6 months (they took 6 months, because of a third country police certificate, but it could have been 4). This is the fastest, simplest way to move legally, you will get a green card on entry meaning you'll be eligible to work and travel abroad and get health insurance immediately, and you will get to the US faster than 99% of foreigners. Yes it'd still suck to be separated from your partner, but you've really lucked out in getting the fastest track. Take it, study up on the process on VJ, and you'll be there in no time. (And then three years later apply to become a USC so you can become a dual citizen and have the freedom to move back to Canada or elsewhere on short notice and never have to deal with US immigration again.) Bon voyage!

As noted by others, it is that great. I'm 100% sure you're overconfident and just made that number up. Based on DHS data, a quarter of non-immigrants coming by plane visit Florida, and two-thirds are visiting one of five states, which are big tourist destinations (NY, FL, CA) or border states (TX, AZ, CA, NY). (One site I found says nearly half of families visiting the US go to a theme park, and most of them to a major one.) Around 20% aren't even visiting for pleasure (business, students, moving to US as temporary residents, etc.). These 80 million per year (pre-covid) also mostly don't count land admissions from Mexico, which were about 350 million per year, many of whom go back and forth for work, nor land admissions from Canada, which are over 10 million per year. And 20 million of the 80 million are from VWP countries, and if you add in Canadians that's a lot of people who can afford a week or two in the US without needing to stay with family or friends. While some of all these groups are visiting family and friends, 70% seems way too high, and I could not find that number anywhere. This is hilariously wrong. DHS's overstay report says the number of overstays from NIV who entered by sea and air is at most 3.67%. Within that, 0.25% did leave the country within the fiscal year (just late), and another 0.38% adjusted status, brining the total down to 3.04%. (Some may have adjusted fraudulently, but some did not, including some K-1s who hit 90 days and dual-intent. Having at most 0.2% or 0.3% of entries use a NIV to arrive and then fraudulently adjust status is very, very small.) They may not capture all departures too, but even if it's most, that's around 3%. Hardly a majority. And around 20% of total overstays are just from TPS from Venezuela. VWP overstay rate is 1.15%, non-VWP is 7%, student/exchange is 3.5%, and for arrival by air/sea Canada is 0.5% and Mexico is 3.5% (but Canada in Mexico do not give DHS exit data when their citizens drive home, so those numbers are probably lower). As noted above, it's at most a 0.3% problem. One in 300. Is it worth this system for <0.3%? Most, I bet, think not. The most pessimistic cost estimates to governments are under $500 per American per year for all people without legal status, about equal to the benefit that international tourism brings to the economy. Take out illegal entries (rather than overstays), that's around $300. The less pessimistic estimates are less than that, and include benefits, like taxes paid; one could also include growing the economy. And since many people in the US without legal status arrived in prior years, the cost of new overstays per year to governments is probably something like $30 per American. If tourism dropped about 5%, this would hurt the US economy as much as the savings created. These measures are not there now. There were some temporary measures between June (when the border reopened to foreigners on tours) and Oct 2022 (when it reopened generally) due to covid. Right now, as an American citizen, you can buy a ticket to Japan today, arrive tomorrow and pass through immigration at the airport, no visa or registration needed. (You may need a return ticket, but they don't always check.) All you have to do is note your first night's address of stay. Some countries, like China, North Korea and those of the former Soviet Union, for example, require you to bring addresses of where you'll stay each night to get your visa (though you can sometimes change later), and then hotels or friends/family will report you to the local police every night so it's recorded where you are. I doubt that would be popular for many going to the US: the land of freedom making you register with a tour company and report your whereabouts every night. You're welcome to have strong and passionate opinions on this, but lots of your "facts" supporting your opinions are just made up and not even close to reality. You seem to think overstays are the majority of visits, when it's actually in the low single digits, and that it causes massive financial harm, when it's actually at worst under 1% of government spending, and probably a tenth of that. It's definitely the case that there are issues, and there are ways to adjust the system. But given the scale of the problem compared to the scale of this solution, and how much of an outlier the US would be among developed countries, I think most would rather just keep what we have and work to make smaller changes (like mandatory E-Verify, which would likely severely cut overstays).

They will pay the old fee. The last USCIS fee change was scheduled to go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register (and I don't see anything in there yet about the new final rule being adopted). Note that it also says that submissions postmarked on or after the effective date must use the new few, so it is not the receipt date, but the postmark date. Rulemaking generally requires a minimum 30-day period between publication and effective date so that the public can become aware of the changes, with limited exceptions for removals of restrictions and other good cause (think something with imminent harm, like security changes after 9/11, or making it harder to deport someone). Raising fees will never be the kind of rule that would be effective in less than 30 days.

That's actually exactly what I was contemplating. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed that ruling, meaning it did not even feel the need to hold a hearing, so it is indisputable that that constitutional provision is inoperative. There is a good list of cases and opinions with similar outcomes (click on summaries or citing cases). So that's pretty conclusive, and you're safe taking the job. The issue, then, is how this oath is affected by the court invalidation of the citizenship/alien requirement referenced in the exemption. One could say that since the constitutional section is invalid, the exemption is invalid, so everyone must take the oath (just eliminate subsection D). Conversely, one could say that since the exemption is still valid for faculty who are aliens, what the courts could do was say every alien should be treated as faculty are, so all aliens are exempt (rewrite subsection D as "Any of the persons, relating to the employment of aliens, are exempted from any compliance with this section."). Legally speaking, it is whether the courts would read down or read in the law: do you narrow or broaden the exemption, or narrow or broaden the law. (Also, fun fact, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a broader version of this oath, which banned joining any organization that did anything ad, but that language has been removed.) At this point, though the oath was originally required in a way that only citizens could take it, it's now unclear, but you don't have to affirm citizenship in saying it, so if you want you can just do it and not worry. Or you can press someone at HR or the AG/SOS office who is a lawyer to pronounce on this before doing it. Or you can hire a lawyer and try to get this settled, but that seems like overkill. Lastly, it would be nice to contact your state legislators and ask them to fix this law, which references an invalid part of the state constitution, and maybe even repeal that invalid section of the constitution. Good luck!

Your warning bells were well attuned, because unless you're to be a college faculty member, you should tread carefully. The link to the oath you posted has links to the code section implementing it, which says, in part: And if you go to that constitutional section, it lists college faculty as some the people the code section refers to, so if that's your job then you're exempt, and you can point HR to it, but presumably the college HR people would know this exception well. The other relevant people are teachers on exchange and prisoners. More worryingly, it starts with: I could not find anything about this elsewhere, but Arizona is not the most friendly state to immigrants, with or without papers. Unless this constitutional section has been overturned by a court, you may not be able to work for state or local government in Arizona as an LPR. As well, it's possible that somewhere in the process you attested that you meet all qualifications for this job, which, implicitly, seemingly requires you to be a US citizen. I would make sure that legal counsel at HR is made aware of this constitutional provision and attests that it is non-applicable to your case, rather than trusting a mid level administrator. And especially if it is applicable, I would make sure that you document this all on paper (email), and that you make clear that you are not a citizen, that you did not notice any requirements to be a citizen during the application process and that if they were there you did not see it and so did not willfully lie about your citizenship status, that as soon as you became aware of this you explicitly affirmed you were not a citizen, and that you never had any intent to claim citizenship and always did the opposite. (You could, after this is all over, FOIA all this so you have the record from them, not just your email.) Hopefully that, combined with not actually starting the job and so not actually gaining a benefit (salary), should keep you from making the cardinal sin of immigration law. I hope you do get to accept this job, but you did a good thing when you saw this language and got worried about it. Let this be a lesson to everyone to read documents you sign, and if it sounds like something for a citizen, be absolutely sure it's not.