Marrying a us resident benfits

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Anyway, state is taking high tuition fees from students who are not resident of US in exchange for the education they are providing. I think it's fair. Whether the person goes back to his home country or finds a legal way to work in the US.

No the states aren't. That's what Jim was saying. If you can prove you're a resident of a state (i.e. LIVING there, not LPR) you get subsidised tuition for "in-state rates". If illegals want to study that's all well and good, but they shouldn't get subsidised. They should benefit from government assistance/leniency in any way.

scandalous! they want an education ?!?!

so you mean because they are illegal they really shouldn't get an education in the first place?

and with the in-state tuition, college is pretty much free anyway right?

No he's not saying they shouldn't get an education, he's saying the government shouldn't assist them to pay lower fees. They should pay out-of-state rates or international rates.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Vanessa&Tony

[missicy 87]

Why unfortunately? and why "never be able to work legally"? There are so many possibilities after education here. An employer can sponsor you. USC spouse can sponsor you.

No, they can't if you are in the country illegaly.

[Mike Z 8]

No the states aren't. That's what Jim was saying. If you can prove you're a resident of a state (i.e. LIVING there, not LPR) you get subsidised tuition for "in-state rates". If illegals want to study that's all well and good, but they shouldn't get subsidised. They should benefit from government assistance/leniency in any way.

No he's not saying they shouldn't get an education, he's saying the government shouldn't assist them to pay lower fees. They should pay out-of-state rates or international rates.

well, whilst i agree with this in principle, please read the first sentence of his response. (and go back to that post to double-check)

Unfortunately, this is true in most states.

this has nothing to do with in-state tution as he is responding to someone being able to attend university whilst paying international fees.

he seems to refer to the fact that unfortunately they can attend university despite being illegal. (his next sentence then states whats even worse - the part about in state tuition.)

maybe JimVaPhuong can clarify...

Edited March 4, 2012 by Mike Z

[Imagination 15]

No the states aren't. That's what Jim was saying. If you can prove you're a resident of a state (i.e. LIVING there, not LPR) you get subsidised tuition for "in-state rates". If illegals want to study that's all well and good, but they shouldn't get subsidised. They should benefit from government assistance/leniency in any way.

No he's not saying they shouldn't get an education, he's saying the government shouldn't assist them to pay lower fees. They should pay out-of-state rates or international rates.

You are WRONG! The state DOES take international fees from students that are not residents. You need to get your facts straight first. Jim only talked about "California", IF the person attended High School there.

[Imagination 15]

well, whilst i agree with this in principle, please read the first sentence of his response. (and go back to that post to double-check)

this has nothing to do with in-state tution as he is responding to someone being able to attend university whilst paying international fees.

he seems to refer to the fact that unfortunately they can attend university despite being illegal. (his next sentence then states whats even worse - the part about in state tuition.)

maybe JimVaPhuong can clarify...

Agreed! That's what Jim said. Some people just comment without reading and understanding what is being said before they jump in.

[Mike Z 8]

having a bit of a discussion sometimes is good, we all have our opinions. ( i plead guilty to wanting to voice my opinion too)

now back to original intent of the posting :-)

[bigdog 376]

See an immigration lawyer, this does not look good. You cannot work if you are not legal at least legally.

[juliava 80]

To the OP-eventually, sooner or later, your current petitions are going to be denied as you are not elligible for them. There is also a possibility to receive a letter from USCIS asking you to leave the country within X number of days. I wonder if you would be ready to implement an alternative plan and take action on this, as ignoring the notice would not do any good. The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe that it might not be a bad idea to retrieve those petitions. Again, I'm talking possibilities here; however, if you decide to see an immigration lawyer ask him, please, the pros and the cons of keeping those worthless petitions pending.

ps: I hope you are not going to see the same lawyer who has filed both or any of those petitions.

[noona 0]

if you are illegal, marrying a resident wont do anything not a status or a work permit, but you can marry her so when she becomes USC she can file for you and it wont be suspicious when u r married for 5 years, if u get married after she become usc it will be suspicious with your 2 applications..

[rika60607 215]

I wonder if she will be able to naturalize if she has an overstay husband

Especially if he worked illegally and they filed joint taxes. There is something about good moral character there, isn't there?

if you are illegal, marrying a resident wont do anything not a status or a work permit, but you can marry her so when she becomes USC she can file for you and it wont be suspicious when u r married for 5 years, if u get married after she become usc it will be suspicious with your 2 applications..

[jdh 103]

I wonder if she will be able to naturalize if she has an overstay husband

Especially if he worked illegally and they filed joint taxes. There is something about good moral character there, isn't there?

Good question. Shouldn't there be some question in there about aiding or harboring an illegal?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Too many points raised to address each individually.

Almost nobody pays full tuition at a public university. Foreign and out-of-state residents pay non-resident tuition. Residents of the state pay in-state tuition. Both are usually subsidized to some degree, but in-state residents are subsidized to a much higher degree than non-residents. It's difficult to say exactly how much of each student's tuition is being subsidized because university budgets are not broken down by cost per student. There are certain overhead costs that are fixed, regardless of the number of students. However, the sum of tuitions paid is never equal to the total operating costs of the university, and the total operating costs divided by the number of students is always substantially higher than the non-resident student tuition. This means every student is subsidized to some degree.

I say it's unfortunate that they allow persons who are unlawfully present to attend public universities, even if they pay non-resident tuition, because they're using seats that might be occupied by legal residents or made available to student visa applicants. If I were a foreign student wanting to apply for a student visa, and I ended up being turned down by the university I wanted to attend because there were students in those classes who had simply overstayed their visas or entered the US illegally, I would be pretty pissed off.

My comment about California is that they allow illegal immigrants; i.e., those who entered without inspection, to not only attend public universities, but to pay in-state tuition if they can prove they attended high school in the state. There are precious few paths that would allow an EWI to ever get a green card without leaving the United States and facing an extended ban. This means the taxpayers of California are largely subsidizing the tuition of people who will probably never be able to work legally in the United States. Since the intention of subsidized education is to invest in the future workforce of the state, it seems counter productive to invest in a student who will likely never be authorized to work in the United States.

Now, I just know somebody is going to throw the DREAM act into this equation. My personal opinion is that the DREAM act won't pass anytime in the foreseeable future. A couple of years ago we had a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, a Democrat controlled Senate, and a Democrat president, and the act still failed to pass. The majority mood in the country right now is against any form of amnesty for EWI's, even if they were brought to the US as children by their parents. Whether it's true or not, there is a perception by a majority of Americans that illegal immigrants are using benefits and taking jobs that would otherwise be available for citizens and permanent residents.

There was a recent article by AP which was intended to conjure up sympathy for illegal immigrants, but the comments to the article made it clear that it had the opposite effect. The immigrants in the article had recently returned to Alabama after it became clear that the widespread deportation sweeps they feared had never materialized. Many of them were complaining that only some of them were able to return to work because many employers were insisting on proof of employment authorization. The truth is that Alabama's unemployment rate dropped by a record 0.5% in October, and another 0.6% in November after the state began enforcing the employment authorization portion of it's immigration enforcement law, and the comments following the article made it clear that people clearly recognized this.

[Dakine10 5,452]

In the case filed by the mother, a waiver is possible if she becomes a US citizen. A waiver will not be granted when the petitioner is an LPR. She needs to be a US citizen in order to file for a waiver for her overstayed son. Additionally, it could be quite difficult to get a waiver.

If his mother becomes a citizen, he will be eligible to adjust status as an immediate relative without a waiver. They would need to upgrade the I-130 by sending a copy of her naturalization. The waiver is needed for reentry if he leaves the USA prior to that.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

If his mother becomes a citizen, he will be eligible to adjust status as an immediate relative without a waiver. They would need to upgrade the I-130 by sending a copy of her naturalization. The waiver is needed for reentry if he leaves the USA prior to that.

No, he is over 21.

[Dakine10 5,452]

No, he is over 21.

Oops. Presbyopia must be setting in here. For some reason I saw 19.