ABS-CBN North America News Bureau
WASHINGTON DC. Filipinos with close relatives in the United States now have to wait from five up to 20 years for immigrant petitions to push through. But now, the White House wants to scrap the practice altogether, triggering a howl of protest from the immigrant community here.
US President George Bush will reportedly move for the elimination of all family-based immigrant visas as part of "draconian measures" to reform the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
The White House’s hardening stand clashed directly with US House Resolution 1645 which provides for comprehensive US immigration reforms. The US measure aims, among others, to eliminate the backlog in family-based visa applications, especially for spouses and unmarried children of legal residents (so-called "green card holders") 21 years old and younger.
Jon Melegrito, executive director of the National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (NAFVE), warns the White House move will have severe repercussions for the Filipino-American community and their families in the Philippines.
Stephen Legomsky of the Washington University School of Law told a hearing of the US House subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law Thursday afternoon, "these separations virtually invite illegal immigration".
Melegrito accuses US President Bush of "playing politics" with the proposed immigration reform package by offering to scrap family-based visas. Many see it as old-fashioned DC horse-trading to prod hard-line Republicans to support the reforms.
Curiously, much of the Bush package such as a guest worker program and allowing undocumented workers to stay in the US after paying fines, have drawn wider support from Democrats than from his own party.
Republicans have taken the tack that prevention and intensified enforcement – like building a wall across the Mexican border – was the way to go. There’s an estimated 250,000 undocumented Filipinos in the US and they would obviously be anxious about any fresh crackdown on illegals.
Muzzaffar Chishti, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, testified, "With very few options for entering legally through employment-based visa categories, intending immigrants could try to enter through the family-based categories…but the wait list for many of these categories are prohibitively long."
"In the absence of legal channels, immigrants entering our labor market have come to rely on illegal channels," Chishti told the solons.
The pressure is only sure to mount as so-called Baby Boomers near retirement. This and a combination of normal attrition and economic expansion are expected to create 65 million new jobs by the end of the decade, a demand the local workforce can barely fill.
Fil-Am groups are joining a large immigration rally here on May 1, dubbed the "Great American Boycott". Organizers are asking protesters to stay off work and shopping malls and march on the streets of D.C. The divergent immigrant groups are driven by their own agenda and priorities.
For the Fil-Am community, protecting their right to bring spouses and children here is top on their list. "Families should be together as soon as possible, and they should shorten the time between applying for the visa and getting it here," explained Rozita Lee, vice chair of the umbrella National Federation of Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA).
Full Version: What do u guys think about this NEWS!!!!!
So, does this mean that it'll be even longer for family petitions to go through?
QUOTE(consolemaster @ Apr 21 2007, 01:02 AM) 
So, does this mean that it'll be even longer for family petitions to go through?
That's what ive heard from the news on tv also
"Families should be together as soon as possible, and they should shorten the time between applying for the visa and getting it here,"
this should apply for all going thru any location!!!!
this should apply for all going thru any location!!!!
QUOTE(AnneiyAndJacky @ Apr 20 2007, 12:25 PM)
ABS-CBN North America News Bureau
WASHINGTON DC. Filipinos with close relatives in the United States now have to wait from five up to 20 years for immigrant petitions to push through. But now, the White House wants to scrap the practice altogether, triggering a howl of protest from the immigrant community here.
US President George Bush will reportedly move for the elimination of all family-based immigrant visas as part of "draconian measures" to reform the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
The White House’s hardening stand clashed directly with US House Resolution 1645 which provides for comprehensive US immigration reforms. The US measure aims, among others, to eliminate the backlog in family-based visa applications, especially for spouses and unmarried children of legal residents (so-called "green card holders") 21 years old and younger.
Jon Melegrito, executive director of the National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (NAFVE), warns the White House move will have severe repercussions for the Filipino-American community and their families in the Philippines.
Stephen Legomsky of the Washington University School of Law told a hearing of the US House subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law Thursday afternoon, "these separations virtually invite illegal immigration".
Melegrito accuses US President Bush of "playing politics" with the proposed immigration reform package by offering to scrap family-based visas. Many see it as old-fashioned DC horse-trading to prod hard-line Republicans to support the reforms.
Curiously, much of the Bush package such as a guest worker program and allowing undocumented workers to stay in the US after paying fines, have drawn wider support from Democrats than from his own party.
Republicans have taken the tack that prevention and intensified enforcement – like building a wall across the Mexican border – was the way to go. There’s an estimated 250,000 undocumented Filipinos in the US and they would obviously be anxious about any fresh crackdown on illegals.
Muzzaffar Chishti, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, testified, "With very few options for entering legally through employment-based visa categories, intending immigrants could try to enter through the family-based categories…but the wait list for many of these categories are prohibitively long."
"In the absence of legal channels, immigrants entering our labor market have come to rely on illegal channels," Chishti told the solons.
The pressure is only sure to mount as so-called Baby Boomers near retirement. This and a combination of normal attrition and economic expansion are expected to create 65 million new jobs by the end of the decade, a demand the local workforce can barely fill.
Fil-Am groups are joining a large immigration rally here on May 1, dubbed the "Great American Boycott". Organizers are asking protesters to stay off work and shopping malls and march on the streets of D.C. The divergent immigrant groups are driven by their own agenda and priorities.
For the Fil-Am community, protecting their right to bring spouses and children here is top on their list. "Families should be together as soon as possible, and they should shorten the time between applying for the visa and getting it here," explained Rozita Lee, vice chair of the umbrella National Federation of Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA).
WASHINGTON DC. Filipinos with close relatives in the United States now have to wait from five up to 20 years for immigrant petitions to push through. But now, the White House wants to scrap the practice altogether, triggering a howl of protest from the immigrant community here.
US President George Bush will reportedly move for the elimination of all family-based immigrant visas as part of "draconian measures" to reform the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
The White House’s hardening stand clashed directly with US House Resolution 1645 which provides for comprehensive US immigration reforms. The US measure aims, among others, to eliminate the backlog in family-based visa applications, especially for spouses and unmarried children of legal residents (so-called "green card holders") 21 years old and younger.
Jon Melegrito, executive director of the National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (NAFVE), warns the White House move will have severe repercussions for the Filipino-American community and their families in the Philippines.
Stephen Legomsky of the Washington University School of Law told a hearing of the US House subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law Thursday afternoon, "these separations virtually invite illegal immigration".
Melegrito accuses US President Bush of "playing politics" with the proposed immigration reform package by offering to scrap family-based visas. Many see it as old-fashioned DC horse-trading to prod hard-line Republicans to support the reforms.
Curiously, much of the Bush package such as a guest worker program and allowing undocumented workers to stay in the US after paying fines, have drawn wider support from Democrats than from his own party.
Republicans have taken the tack that prevention and intensified enforcement – like building a wall across the Mexican border – was the way to go. There’s an estimated 250,000 undocumented Filipinos in the US and they would obviously be anxious about any fresh crackdown on illegals.
Muzzaffar Chishti, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, testified, "With very few options for entering legally through employment-based visa categories, intending immigrants could try to enter through the family-based categories…but the wait list for many of these categories are prohibitively long."
"In the absence of legal channels, immigrants entering our labor market have come to rely on illegal channels," Chishti told the solons.
The pressure is only sure to mount as so-called Baby Boomers near retirement. This and a combination of normal attrition and economic expansion are expected to create 65 million new jobs by the end of the decade, a demand the local workforce can barely fill.
Fil-Am groups are joining a large immigration rally here on May 1, dubbed the "Great American Boycott". Organizers are asking protesters to stay off work and shopping malls and march on the streets of D.C. The divergent immigrant groups are driven by their own agenda and priorities.
For the Fil-Am community, protecting their right to bring spouses and children here is top on their list. "Families should be together as soon as possible, and they should shorten the time between applying for the visa and getting it here," explained Rozita Lee, vice chair of the umbrella National Federation of Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA).
This is why we are stuck since march 12 of last year...at Vermont on those visas?...and the workers visas are from jan or feb timilines of this year?...hm!...i like to be a guynea pig!...i love it lol
QUOTE(knowledge @ Apr 21 2007, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE(AnneiyAndJacky @ Apr 20 2007, 12:25 PM)
ABS-CBN North America News Bureau
WASHINGTON DC. Filipinos with close relatives in the United States now have to wait from five up to 20 years for immigrant petitions to push through. But now, the White House wants to scrap the practice altogether, triggering a howl of protest from the immigrant community here.
US President George Bush will reportedly move for the elimination of all family-based immigrant visas as part of "draconian measures" to reform the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
The White House’s hardening stand clashed directly with US House Resolution 1645 which provides for comprehensive US immigration reforms. The US measure aims, among others, to eliminate the backlog in family-based visa applications, especially for spouses and unmarried children of legal residents (so-called "green card holders") 21 years old and younger.
Jon Melegrito, executive director of the National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (NAFVE), warns the White House move will have severe repercussions for the Filipino-American community and their families in the Philippines.
Stephen Legomsky of the Washington University School of Law told a hearing of the US House subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law Thursday afternoon, "these separations virtually invite illegal immigration".
Melegrito accuses US President Bush of "playing politics" with the proposed immigration reform package by offering to scrap family-based visas. Many see it as old-fashioned DC horse-trading to prod hard-line Republicans to support the reforms.
Curiously, much of the Bush package such as a guest worker program and allowing undocumented workers to stay in the US after paying fines, have drawn wider support from Democrats than from his own party.
Republicans have taken the tack that prevention and intensified enforcement – like building a wall across the Mexican border – was the way to go. There’s an estimated 250,000 undocumented Filipinos in the US and they would obviously be anxious about any fresh crackdown on illegals.
Muzzaffar Chishti, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, testified, "With very few options for entering legally through employment-based visa categories, intending immigrants could try to enter through the family-based categories…but the wait list for many of these categories are prohibitively long."
"In the absence of legal channels, immigrants entering our labor market have come to rely on illegal channels," Chishti told the solons.
The pressure is only sure to mount as so-called Baby Boomers near retirement. This and a combination of normal attrition and economic expansion are expected to create 65 million new jobs by the end of the decade, a demand the local workforce can barely fill.
Fil-Am groups are joining a large immigration rally here on May 1, dubbed the "Great American Boycott". Organizers are asking protesters to stay off work and shopping malls and march on the streets of D.C. The divergent immigrant groups are driven by their own agenda and priorities.
For the Fil-Am community, protecting their right to bring spouses and children here is top on their list. "Families should be together as soon as possible, and they should shorten the time between applying for the visa and getting it here," explained Rozita Lee, vice chair of the umbrella National Federation of Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA).
WASHINGTON DC. Filipinos with close relatives in the United States now have to wait from five up to 20 years for immigrant petitions to push through. But now, the White House wants to scrap the practice altogether, triggering a howl of protest from the immigrant community here.
US President George Bush will reportedly move for the elimination of all family-based immigrant visas as part of "draconian measures" to reform the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
The White House’s hardening stand clashed directly with US House Resolution 1645 which provides for comprehensive US immigration reforms. The US measure aims, among others, to eliminate the backlog in family-based visa applications, especially for spouses and unmarried children of legal residents (so-called "green card holders") 21 years old and younger.
Jon Melegrito, executive director of the National Alliance for Filipino Veterans Equity (NAFVE), warns the White House move will have severe repercussions for the Filipino-American community and their families in the Philippines.
Stephen Legomsky of the Washington University School of Law told a hearing of the US House subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law Thursday afternoon, "these separations virtually invite illegal immigration".
Melegrito accuses US President Bush of "playing politics" with the proposed immigration reform package by offering to scrap family-based visas. Many see it as old-fashioned DC horse-trading to prod hard-line Republicans to support the reforms.
Curiously, much of the Bush package such as a guest worker program and allowing undocumented workers to stay in the US after paying fines, have drawn wider support from Democrats than from his own party.
Republicans have taken the tack that prevention and intensified enforcement – like building a wall across the Mexican border – was the way to go. There’s an estimated 250,000 undocumented Filipinos in the US and they would obviously be anxious about any fresh crackdown on illegals.
Muzzaffar Chishti, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, testified, "With very few options for entering legally through employment-based visa categories, intending immigrants could try to enter through the family-based categories…but the wait list for many of these categories are prohibitively long."
"In the absence of legal channels, immigrants entering our labor market have come to rely on illegal channels," Chishti told the solons.
The pressure is only sure to mount as so-called Baby Boomers near retirement. This and a combination of normal attrition and economic expansion are expected to create 65 million new jobs by the end of the decade, a demand the local workforce can barely fill.
Fil-Am groups are joining a large immigration rally here on May 1, dubbed the "Great American Boycott". Organizers are asking protesters to stay off work and shopping malls and march on the streets of D.C. The divergent immigrant groups are driven by their own agenda and priorities.
For the Fil-Am community, protecting their right to bring spouses and children here is top on their list. "Families should be together as soon as possible, and they should shorten the time between applying for the visa and getting it here," explained Rozita Lee, vice chair of the umbrella National Federation of Filipino-American Associations (NaFFAA).
This is why we are stuck since march 12 of last year...at Vermont on those visas?...and the workers visas are from jan or feb timilines of this year?...hm!...i like to be a guynea pig!...i love it lol
I think this news is only go for the FILIPINOS like me .. how sad
Yea, looks like from the Philippines only. Bush don't like us 
the article used filipinos as an EXAMPLE... not applying this rule only to them. i doubt with the importance placed on families through immigration this would EVER pass.
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 20 2007, 12:28 PM)
the article used filipinos as an EXAMPLE... not applying this rule only to them. i doubt with the importance placed on families through immigration this would EVER pass.
I don't think this would ever pass either. Why don't they focus on how to deal with the 11 million illegal immigrants before they attempt to settle on those who come here legally? That's too much like right. I can't wait to read about their next brilliant scheme! As you can tell, I'm less than impressed.
I think it's weird that PRs can sponsor relatives at all. PRs in the UK can't. I don't see that it's 'draconian' at all.
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 20 2007, 04:19 PM)
I think it's weird that PRs can sponsor relatives at all. PRs in the UK can't. I don't see that it's 'draconian' at all.
Thank you, I felt as though if I said that i would be seen as being insensitive. I agree
so what about PR's spouses? this falls under that category as well. Is that weird?
I guess I am on the other end of the spectrum here.
I guess I am on the other end of the spectrum here.
QUOTE(John & Annie @ Apr 20 2007, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 20 2007, 04:19 PM)
I think it's weird that PRs can sponsor relatives at all. PRs in the UK can't. I don't see that it's 'draconian' at all.
Thank you, I felt as though if I said that i would be seen as being insensitive. I agree
I also agree. Only USCs should be able to sponsor relatives. If a PR naturalizes into a USC, then they should be permitted to sponsor relatives. What do you think?
What will it be next !
why do those of you who think only USC's should have the privilege to sponsor relatives feel that way?
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 20 2007, 04:31 PM)
why do those of you who think only USC's should have the privilege to sponsor relatives feel that way?
My simple answer is because we live in the US, and not the country of the PR.
Permanant residency is not US Citizenship. Being a PR is a form of restricted citizenship. Voting rights are restricted, certain jobs are restricted, and PRs may be deported (based upon certain criteria and this alone should be why sponsorship should not be granted). It does not seem logical to extend the priveledge of sponsorship to PRs. That priveledge should also be restricted. Of course, this is just my opinion and I'm not a legal guru, immigration lawyer, or scholar. Just a USC...
Cheers!!!
Sheriff Uling
***shrugs***
yes I agree, if this happen. worst comes to worst. illegal immigrants will increased.
QUOTE(Sheriff Uling @ Apr 20 2007, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE(John & Annie @ Apr 20 2007, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 20 2007, 04:19 PM)
I think it's weird that PRs can sponsor relatives at all. PRs in the UK can't. I don't see that it's 'draconian' at all.
Thank you, I felt as though if I said that i would be seen as being insensitive. I agree
I also agree. Only USCs should be able to sponsor relatives. If a PR naturalizes into a USC, then they should be permitted to sponsor relatives. What do you think?
I don't agree with all the categories of relatives that are allowed to be sponsored by a USC; I think it's bizarre that you can come into the US, be naturalized, then apply for basically your ENTIRE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. Where else lets you do that?
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 20 2007, 06:31 PM)
why do those of you who think only USC's should have the privilege to sponsor relatives feel that way?
Same reason only USCs should get to vote.
QUOTE(AnneiyAndJacky @ Apr 21 2007, 12:04 AM)
yes I agree, if this happen. worst comes to worst. illegal immigrants will increased.
Oh, so we shouldn't do it because people might break the law? Pfffft. Maybe we should make murder legal too.
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 21 2007, 12:11 AM)
...I think it's bizarre that you can come into the US, be naturalized, then apply for basically your ENTIRE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. Where else lets you do that?
Let me piggy-back on that. I also agree with you two exceptions. The first as I stated earlier that only USCs should be able to sponsor relatives. If a PR naturalizes into a USC, then they should be permitted to sponsor immediate relatives. The second is that PRs that naturalize into USCs should only be permitted to sponsor immediate relatives being spouses and children only.
Off topic but same subject with immigration. I also feel as that only educated or skilled laborers should be permitted to migrate to the US or at least put a cap on the number of non-skilled or uneducated immigrants that migrate here. The US is no longer a developing nation full of factory and/or labor entense employment during the boom of migration to the States. As a nation, we should have adjusted the immigration laws as the focus of our economic and labor structure evolved.
I agree that allowing PRs to migrate their entire families just does not settle well with me either. No matter how protracted the time is before relatives can migrate here through sponsorship.
Cheers!!!
Sheriff Uling
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 21 2007, 03:11 AM)
I don't agree with all the categories of relatives that are allowed to be sponsored by a USC; I think it's bizarre that you can come into the US, be naturalized, then apply for basically your ENTIRE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. Where else lets you do that?
but the topic is whether PR's should be allowed to petition for immediate families. Now you also think its bizarre for a NATURALIZED citizen to petition?
(btw Canada for one does allow PR's to sponsor their immediate relatives)
QUOTE(Sheriff Uling @ Apr 20 2007, 07:51 PM)
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 20 2007, 04:31 PM)
why do those of you who think only USC's should have the privilege to sponsor relatives feel that way?
My simple answer is because we live in the US, and not the country of the PR.
Permanant residency is not US Citizenship. Being a PR is a form of restricted citizenship. Voting rights are restricted, certain jobs are restricted, and PRs may be deported (based upon certain criteria and this alone should be why sponsorship should not be granted). It does not seem logical to extend the priveledge of sponsorship to PRs. That priveledge should also be restricted. Of course, this is just my opinion and I'm not a legal guru, immigration lawyer, or scholar. Just a USC...
Cheers!!!
Sheriff Uling
***shrugs***
agreed
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 21 2007, 03:11 AM)
QUOTE(AnneiyAndJacky @ Apr 21 2007, 12:04 AM)
yes I agree, if this happen. worst comes to worst. illegal immigrants will increased.
Oh, so we shouldn't do it because people might break the law? Pfffft. Maybe we should make murder legal too.
I was thinking the SAME THING when I read that statement, also quoted in the original article too.
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 21 2007, 08:14 AM)
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 21 2007, 03:11 AM)
I don't agree with all the categories of relatives that are allowed to be sponsored by a USC; I think it's bizarre that you can come into the US, be naturalized, then apply for basically your ENTIRE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. Where else lets you do that?
but the topic is whether PR's should be allowed to petition for immediate families. Now you also think its bizarre for a NATURALIZED citizen to petition?
(btw Canada for one does allow PR's to sponsor their immediate relatives)
Well, I think some people only naturalize so they can sponsor more family members. I think you should only be able to petition for spouses and minor children, personally.
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 21 2007, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 21 2007, 08:14 AM)
QUOTE(homesick_american @ Apr 21 2007, 03:11 AM)
I don't agree with all the categories of relatives that are allowed to be sponsored by a USC; I think it's bizarre that you can come into the US, be naturalized, then apply for basically your ENTIRE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. Where else lets you do that?
but the topic is whether PR's should be allowed to petition for immediate families. Now you also think its bizarre for a NATURALIZED citizen to petition?
(btw Canada for one does allow PR's to sponsor their immediate relatives)
Well, I think some people only naturalize so they can sponsor more family members. I think you should only be able to petition for spouses and minor children, personally.
...and some people only naturalize so they can vote, and some so they can collect benefits (the horrors!) etc, etc.
fact of the matter is, PR's ARE allowed to petition immediate family members (and those pesky naturalized ones too!), albeit years down the road, and i dont see that changing!
If it wasn't for PRs being allowed to petition immediate relatives/spouse half the brain power that came to America wouldn't have. If you can't petition for your spouse why would a talented person want to come here and leave their wife/husband and possibly kids behind for the time period it takes to Naturalize?
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 21 2007, 12:06 PM)
...and some people only naturalize so they can vote, and some so they can collect benefits (the horrors!) etc, etc.
fact of the matter is, PR's ARE allowed to petition immediate family members (and those pesky naturalized ones too!), albeit years down the road, and i dont see that changing!
fact of the matter is, PR's ARE allowed to petition immediate family members (and those pesky naturalized ones too!), albeit years down the road, and i dont see that changing!
Well, let's put it this way...if it did change, I wouldn't complain.
QUOTE(LookyWhatIFound @ Apr 21 2007, 02:35 PM)
If it wasn't for PRs being allowed to petition immediate relatives/spouse half the brain power that came to America wouldn't have. If you can't petition for your spouse why would a talented person want to come here and leave their wife/husband and possibly kids behind for the time period it takes to Naturalize?
Spouses and minor children are fine. Parents, adult siblings, adult children...I think that's going too far.
Think about it this way; if they didn't have the burden of processing all those visas, they'd get through the immediate relative (spouse and minor children) applications a lot more quickly.
QUOTE(Sheriff Uling @ Apr 20 2007, 07:29 PM)
I also agree. Only USCs should be able to sponsor relatives. If a PR naturalizes into a USC, then they should be permitted to sponsor relatives. What do you think?
I don't agree with this, but however I think only very close relatives should be eligible for Green Cards. I don't believe that adult children or siblings and in most cases parents should be able to get green cards. The sibling thing particularly annoys me. Just because I become a US citizen why would that give my brother the right to get a Green Card?
Note, I hadn't read homesick's post before posting mine. I should add that I strongly believe that Green Card holders should be able to get a immediate visa number for their spouses, and not have to wait to become US citizens.
QUOTE(Dr_LHA @ Apr 21 2007, 05:13 PM)
Note, I hadn't read homesick's post before posting mine. I should add that I strongly believe that Green Card holders should be able to get a immediate visa number for their spouses, and not have to wait to become US citizens.
Yes, I agree with that. Spouses and minor children = good, everyone else = T.S.
I totally agree.
Seems reasonable to me. Other than visa benefits due to marriage, I don't think relatives should get special treatment. Why should my wife's brother or parents get some benefit that they would not be entitled to if she didn't happen to be married to me? Makes no sense to me. While I do think Bush is a complete fucking moron, I can't say I disagree with this.
QUOTE(lal_brandow @ Apr 20 2007, 07:31 PM)
why do those of you who think only USC's should have the privilege to sponsor relatives feel that way?
I dunno...same reason why only citizens can vote, be on a jury, get a U.S. passport, etc.? Citizenship has its perks ya know.
I just see a bunch of egocentric and self centred people talking crap here....wtf! Why can't my husband petition for his brother when he becomes an American Citizen thru me and how the F*** does that impact on how much money you receive monthly or how much you pay on social security as long as my husband's brother or sister has a job. Am sure most of you even saying this BS ain't even Americans by BIRTH. I am and I believe PR deserve as much as we USC do because most of them work a lot harder than you lazy asses....Stop whinning and keep your negativity to yourselves. My husband is a UKC and am sure he would be a lot more comfy there but he is giving it all up to come here and be with me and am sure a lot of your partners are doing same, so you have taken them away from their families but their families are not worth coming to the states....don't even know why am wasting my time on here 
QUOTE(Justchillin @ Apr 27 2007, 04:55 AM)
I just see a bunch of egocentric and self centred people talking crap here....wtf! Why can't my husband petition for his brother when he becomes an American Citizen thru me and how the F*** does that impact on how much money you receive monthly or how much you pay on social security as long as my husband's brother or sister has a job. Am sure most of you even saying this BS ain't even Americans by BIRTH. I am and I believe PR deserve as much as we USC do because most of them work a lot harder than you lazy asses....Stop whinning and keep your negativity to yourselves. My husband is a UKC and am sure he would be a lot more comfy there but he is giving it all up to come here and be with me and am sure a lot of your partners are doing same, so you have taken them away from their families but their families are not worth coming to the states....don't even know why am wasting my time on here
Um...I'm a USC by BIRTH. The people I see whining are the ones who want to petition for their entire damn family to come over. Very few countries allow this, and the US's family immigration benefits are actually extremely GENEROUS compared to those of...say...the United Kingdom. Getting rid of this would bring the US's immigration policies more into line with "progressive" EU nations' policies.
So...how does disagreeing with you make me a 'lazy ###'? I'm curious. Please elaborate, since you're so much smarter AND more industrious than the rest of us.
QUOTE(Justchillin @ Apr 27 2007, 02:55 AM)
I just see a bunch of egocentric and self centred people talking crap here....wtf! Why can't my husband petition for his brother when he becomes an American Citizen thru me and how the F*** does that impact on how much money you receive monthly or how much you pay on social security as long as my husband's brother or sister has a job. Am sure most of you even saying this BS ain't even Americans by BIRTH. I am and I believe PR deserve as much as we USC do because most of them work a lot harder than you lazy asses....Stop whinning and keep your negativity to yourselves. My husband is a UKC and am sure he would be a lot more comfy there but he is giving it all up to come here and be with me and am sure a lot of your partners are doing same, so you have taken them away from their families but their families are not worth coming to the states....don't even know why am wasting my time on here
Justchillin,
I think you might need to chill out a bit.
First off I did not see where anyone has said anything about "citizens" being restricted.
Secondly, you have come into this conversation very late and have suddenly become very offended. We are having a discussion, in which you are welcome to join and share your opinion just like we have shared ours.
Does any of this mean the policy of the US and immigration is going to change, no it does not.
Please do not feel like you are "wasting time" here. if you would like to get involved in discussion please realize that there will be people who have a different opinion and it is ok, so long as we are not abusive towards each other. Which frankly, you crossed the line. That being said, I am not offended at your post, I would only ask that you temper your posts and realize that changes to immigration policy are gradual and slow.
Have a great day and hopefully we can have a great discussion and hear why you think the way you do. Quite possibly you may be able to sway someone with your thoughts.
Respectfully,
John
PS. Current immigration law does allow your husband to petition for his family.
I suspect some of the fuel for this legislation has to do with the recent reports that immigrants are uber-more-likely to be on wellfare due to lack of education and skill-sets. The thinking might be if you tie the right to petition for immigration to having valuable skills needed to make America "better", rather then simply being "related" to a USC, it would do greater good for the country. Promoting families is nice but it doesn't necessarily bring in the high-tech and scientist-type immigrants that apparently our country is lacking.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.