According to the I-130 instructions, "If you are a citizen you may file this form for: 1..., 2. your parent if you are at least 21 years old"

What is the logic behing this rule? Is it not in the best interest of a young US citizen to allow his/her mother to come to the US as soon as possible? Is there another route available for the biological parents of children who are legal US citizens?

I don't think there's any logical route. This is more of a political logic than anything else. I wouldn't worry about it much.

A sponsor (child) must be able to prove that he/she can financialy support beneficiary... can a 10 yaer old do that?

Besides, a young US citizen doesn't have to stay in the US; she/he can always live with parents outside the US.

Curiosity - how old are you? (obviously you don't have to answer) Is it that long of a wait?

It is indeed in the best interest of a child to leave with his parents (strike that for abusive/alcoholic/addict parents who couldn't care less about said child), but I think... (and thinking on Sunday mornings is NOt my forte) that it has to do with several things:

1.- avoiding illegal aliens to use the system based on having children on US soil (and NO, I am NOT going to start a war/rant against ilegal immigrants. I am be more compassionate than that).

2.- If you're not of legal age to drink, you're not of legal age to vote, smoke, hold a credit card; then you're not old enough to sponsor anyone.

Remember, sponsorship always has the financial string to it. Hope you can solve your case some other way

"Advise" : Check out the websites for USCIS and others, also, PM senior members who may have more info than this simple mortal.

Peace, L.

?????

Of course there's a logical route, not political. As Len and Bren said,

.- If you're not of legal age to drink, you're not of legal age to vote, smoke, hold a credit card; then you're not old enough to sponsor anyone.

FYI - Voting Age in US is 18...

[/quote]

FYI - Voting Age in US is 18...
[/quote]

Did not say otherwise my dear friend... same logic applies - not old enough to do some things, not old enough to sponsor parents. Thans for the info though

Did not say otherwise my dear friend... same logic applies - not old enough to do some things, not old enough to sponsor parents. Thans for the info though



I know you didn't...my fat-fingers replied to wrong posting...but at any rate....

I agree- thems are the rules...that all you can say...

So, you're telling me that if you're 17 or 18 and have a few million dollars. Money wouldn't be a reason to not being able to sponser, give another valid reason. Have you even thought of that? Hmm...I think not.

And what exactly are the chances of that happening?

No. I wanted to make a point. Many employers are willing to hire workers age 16+. Working minimum wage can still get you to exceed that Federal Poverty Guideline. There must be another reason why they chose 21+.

I would think it is because Age of Majority varies from state to state. All states however, recognize 21 as an Age of Majority.

It's the same rule for everyone basically - can vote, but not buy alcohol...for example..

Try for a second to think logically. How many 17 or 18 year olds have a few million dollars? How many 16 years old who work part time (and most go to school the rest of the time) would make enough income in one year with three years worth of tax returns to support that and to be able to sponsor someone? There is no political reason behind the minimum age to sponsor someone, it's sheer common sense. If there was a national age of majority, they would have used that.

But one can sponsor a spouse if he/she is under 21. So, if you have a legal right to sponsor a spouse, why can't you sponsor a parent?

Did you read my subsequent post? Hmm...I think not.

?? Read your posts - no reasonable explanation posted. Just because a 16 is allowed to work doesn't mean they can afford to sponsor someone. In any event, my point was that it's obviously not for political reasons that 16 year olds cannot sponsor - there are clearly other, much more logical reasons.

Thanks! Interesting comments here. No, I'm not a Minor. I'm in Thailand and my fiancee and I have a 1 year old daughter (who now has a US passport and is a US citizen). We're considering our various options to get her to the States , and it just struck me as very odd that there appears to be no option to get her to the US based solely on her relationship to her US citizen child.

It just blows me away that our laws force US citizen children to remain outside US borders to be with their biological parents. The law doesn't look out for the best interests of the kids. If they're worried about infants born to illegals on US soil, that's hardly the same situation as an infant born outside the US to one US citizen parent.

I think you mistyped and meant getting the child to the US based on her relationship to her USC mother, right? If you are in Thailand with your USC child and your fiance is in the US and is the USC who is going to petition for you on a K1, the petition simply needs to include the daughter (K2).


http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/ty...types_2994.html

Children Have Derivative Status

The child of a fiancé(e) may receive a derivative K-2 visa from his/her parent’s fiancé(e) petition. You, the American citizen petitioner, must make sure that you name the child in the I-129F petition. After the marriage of the child’s parent and the American citizen, the child will need a separate form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status. The child may travel with (accompany) the K-1 parent/fiancé(e) or travel later (follow-to-join) within one year from the date of issuance of the K-1 visa to his/her parent. A separate petition is not required if the children accompany or follow the alien fiancé(e) within one year from the date of issuance of the K-1 visa. If it is long than one year from the date of visa issuance, a separate immigrant visa petition is required.

Remember that in immigration law a child must be unmarried. The stepparent/stepchild relationship must be created before the child reaches the age of 18.

Ok I'm confused.

He is the USC

His girlfriend is not

They had a baby who can claim citizenship through him.

I think.

But then presumably the child has dual citizenship so will be 'forced' to be outside of one country.

K2 does not come into it.

Struck me as a nonsense post, they have a route, use it. If you want to.

No, I didn't mistype. I'm a US citizen. My girlfriend/fiancee is not. Our daughter IS a US citizen. I proved that I was the father at the US embassy and they issued our daughter a US passport. She is a US citizen. She can go the US anytime she wants.

Forget me. Why isn't there a process for my 1-year-old daughter (a US citizen) to bring her own biological mother to the US?
Yes, we'll wind up using one of the standard ways based on her relationship to me to get her to the US. I just don't understand why nobody ever thought of the interests of US citizen children in developing these processes.

You have your answer.



I have traveled with small children, they came with me, I did not go with them.



Parents look after the interests of Children under the age of majority, not the other way around.

Thanks for clarifying

Ditto
There IS A process if she is your fiance and she has a child.
Being a USC child doesn't give you the right to petition for someone until you are 21. Period.
(If not, all those undocumented aliens with USC children would already be legal).

You make a very valid point, kitkat!
( Thanks for clearing that up, Boiler . I was getting confused, as well. )

OhhhYouKnow,

The child is also a Thai citizen. She can remain in Thailand with both of her parents - you're there, aren't you?

Or, if you leave, she can remain in Thailand with her Thai parent or come to the USA with her American parent.

Finally, what need has she to bring her mother to the USA when you can do it?

Yodrak

For the edification of those reading:

Someone under the age of majority has no contractual ability. Meaning they legally can't put their name to anything that binds them. Any contract or legal document signed by a minor is considered flawed.

By example: Minor child takes title to a piece of real estate they own by virtue of being named in a will. The court will need to appoint a guardian for that child in order for the deed to the property to pass to another individual if conveyance takes place before the minor reaches majority. That guardian will usually have been interviewed by another court official who certifies the guardian has the best interest of the minor at heart and said conveyance will be in the best interest of the minor child. After a hearing on the matter, a judge will render the guardian as legally able to sign for the minor.