For those of you who will be becoming citizens soon and would like to bring parents or adult children to the US in the future, please read "Proposed Restrictions on Parents" in the General Citizens Bringing Family Members to US forum. The new immigration bill that was approved by the Senate, while trying to resolve the illegal immigration problem, puts a severe cap on visas for parents, siblings and adult children of US citizens. The new guidelines put a greater emphasis on work/efficiency skills and English proficiency rather than on family ties. Based on the capping, parents and children may have to wait several years before they can get PR. What is more, if they do apply for PR, they maybe denied visit visas for that period until they have received the GC ( which could be greater than 5-10 years or more). For those of us, who think this is a serious concern, we cannot let the bill pas in the current form. My wife and I have already sent letters to Sentaor Kennedy, and several other people on the forum mentioned above are also doing so.

Just wanted to keep my friends on this forum updated as well.

Thanks,
c_mat

What you are not realizing is that your Family Members if competing for a job here in the US will have the advantage over some one who does not have ties to the US

But how could they compete if they are 60 or 70 years old and know minimal English? There's many such applicants who have parents in the above category.

The bill hasn't passed yet, c mat. It's just on the floor.

I sort of hope it does...at least that way, my unholy mother-in-law won't have a prayer of following us to the USA.

That was a joke, BTW. I hope the bill doesn't pass, but I wouldn't mind never seeing my MIL again.

c_mat,

I have no problem with this change in emphasis.

I know a lot of immigrants - my present circle of friends and acquaintences is more immigrant that native born - and none of them necessarily want to be bring family members to the USA. Their immediate family is here, and they can visit their other family members back home as easily as I can visit my other family members on the opposite coast of the USA. (Which is not to say how easy it is, only that it's somewhat comparable.)

Nor do their families of the immigrants I know want to emmigrate to the USA. They are perfectly happy living in their own country. And I am not talking about 'rich, 1st-world' countries. They are suited to their own lifestyle, and recognize that they might not be suited to the American lifestyle. Happy to visit or be visited, but wouldn't want to live here.

True enough, though, close family ties are a key part of many cultures, and many families want to stay close. Which always causes me 2nd thoughts in such cases - why one member would want to break away, and then once they have broken away 'family reunification' suddenly becomes a major issue in their life. Is there a motive here somewhere to get one family member into the USA, and use that one to get the rest of the family here as well?

Yodrak

c_mat,

It is a legitimate objective of immigration policy to bring in people who can benefit the country and keep out people who would be detrimental to or a drag on the country.

I think it's safe to say that this is something that is a part of all countries' immigration policy. What will vary from country to country are the definitions of 'desireable' and 'undesireable' immigrants. And I also think it's safe to say that even though this immigration bill would de-emphasize family-based immigration, the USA would remain among the countries where family re-unification is a significant aspect of immigration policy.

Yodrak

To me the parents visitor visa proposal (so they can visit their children in the US for longer stays) is as fair as it can be. My parents have their life solved in Peru, considering their age, I would like to have them spend spring and summer here with me. Mine is a very big family, I would not dare to take my parents away from them, that would be really sad.

Jess

Personally, my parents does not want to move from Indonesia. As Yodrak mentioned above, they are not rich but they live comfortably. Both are retired and fortunately have good medical benefit. More importantly, they have family and friends (very close friends who are more like family than friends) around them. My siblings are all living close to them (not all in Indonesia but close enough to see each other frequently). If it were up to me, I would want them to be able to visit us for extended time and the new extended visa for parents will probably the better choice.

I think a cap would be unfair to parents who are old, widowed and ill and canot live alone in home country.

That's the kind of immigrant the USA is probably wanting to keep out....Harsh as it sounds, what do thet have to offer the USA?



And why exactly should the USA worry about that???

It is not just about what immigrants can give US. It is about immigrants' family needs too.

The immigrants have already been the opportunity to come to the States. Why should the USA automatically allow them to bring everyone else too?

taco2,

Perhaps. But how many would really be in this narrow category?

In particular, how many would be truly alone, especially in countries where the culture is for extended families to take care of family members? Why does the task have to fall to the family member who has emigrated to the USA?

Yodrak

Simple. Because of the money-tree that grows in every US citizens backyard.

Because not everyone in the USA is a heartless #####?

I think some people do not realize how hard it is for some of our in-laws to even get a tourist visa to come visit the US. Many of you from European countries or the UK, I think it's much easier for your family to come visit here. Maybe having them move here isn't a big deal to you then.

If for some reason my husband's family has something bad happen to them, and already one of my sis in laws is now a young widow, if they cannot come here it would mean we would have to go there.

To me, if I am an American citizen, and my husband will be one day, is it fair that my country won't allow my relatives to ever come see where I live and visit, or to move here with us if they really need our help. Instead, we have to leave our good home and good living and working conditions in my home country of the US to go live where it will be much harder for me in many ways, because my country won't let me take care of my sis in law who will have no one to take care of her when my MIL and FIL die? I am not asking to transport all of my husband's family here. Just possibly someone who will really need us in the future. It wouldn't be easy for her to live alone in India.

We cannot ask her to just come visit for long periods of time. We don't have that luxury. It would be surprising to me if the embassies in India would actually approve a tourist visa for her. And if they don't allow sibling visas anymore, it puts a lot of pressure on us here on what to do about the future.

And already the sibling visas take forever to process, but at least there is a hope that it could happen one day.

Well said. You speak for a lot of us.

I second that.

stina&suj,

Your young widowed sister-in-law cannot take care of herself? My young divorced sister-in-law is doing just fine on her own, and she's doing it in a 3rd-world country that is arguably less 'advanced' than your sister-in-law's country.

Yodrak

SOME of us know EXACTLY how difficult it is: In the case of the Phil, it is in effect impossible to get a tourist visa. But the immigrant spouse knows this good and well before he/she applies for visa. Then suddenly this being OK with the seperation from family in order to be with their spouses in the US evaporates when they become citizens, and the "let's bring the whole family over" sentiment starts for many. How should we define "immediate" family for immigration? My wife's parents because they will miss their youngest daughter and want to be with her in America? But wait, she's the youngest of eleven, so when the parents come over, the other 10 brothers and sisters will now miss their parents also. So should those 10 and their families be able to obtain a visa? If that were the case, it would not be very long before all of the Philippines was vacant since all were in America. I would wager that nearly every family in the Philippines has at least one "close" relative who has moved here with an American spouse.

Bottom-line, if my wife's parents can't visit, we will visit them in the RP. Sorta like when I visit my parents on the other coast once a year. With this whole global community thing, I really don't see the need for all this extended-family-based immigration. I too miss my parents in Oregon, but since I work in Pennsylvania, I can only see them when I visit. Maybe I should petition the commowealth of Pennsylvania for a visa for my Oregonian folks? We all make choices in our lives based upon the circumstances at the time, and sometimes the effect is to be seperated from family. I could chose to live with my parents in Oregon, but I chose employment and an opportunity to make a better life somewhere else. It is much like this when a couple enters the visajourney!

I personally don't believe the myth of dreaded "chain migration". I've read a lot of articles on this subject and I've yet to see a statistic on the percentage of immigrants whose families follow them. Until I see such, I remain unconvinced that chain migration is a "problem".

For those that have come here legally, played by all the rules, and paid all the fees - I believe it's patently unfair to close the door against their native family.

It may very well be that many nations have immigration systems that favor skill and education of the intending immigrant over familial relationships. That argument doesn't wash with me when the same bill quashing familial ties in favor of skills/education also creates a special visa class for those who have only enough skills/education to pick vegetables and sweep floors.

In the culture that my SIL is a part of, she cannot live on her own or else she will have a very hard time, and will face discrimination. Just because India is possibly more technologically advanced than other 3rd world countries, only some of the people live with "modern" attitudes, while much of the population still shows discrimination towards ppl like widows.

stina&suj,

Thanks for the explanation, I see the difficulty you face. What I fail to see is why it's US immigration law that's the villian rather than Indian culture.

Yodrak

Don't get me wrong, I also think Indian culture is the villain, or at least the discriminatory parts of the culture. I realize not all Indians think this way or act prejudiced, but there are still many over there who do. If that would change over there, then I would not worry about bringing her here. I wish that could be the case!

As far as Parents are concerned I have always considered that those from 1st World Countries are at a disadvantage most have half passable Medical cover and face major issues in the US.

I may well be in the position of having to move back, not due to limitation on visa numbers but there is no way my Parents could move to the US and get Medical cover.

CMR is required more than CIR.

And being able to use the VWP is not of benefit if you can not afford the travel insurance or can not get it.

If you have nothing to give up, not such a big deal.

I can not rationalise being able to sponsor my sibling.

And if chain migration is not the issue, whats the fuss about? European evidence would suggest otherwise.

Yes, Health insurance for immigrating parents over 65 is a major issue.
They cannot get a proper cover before they complete 5 years in US (when they can buy medicare.)

MA state may have a solution, if you can move there and afford the premium.
Thnks to the new health insurance law they passed recently.

BlueCross MA will insure newly immigrated seniors and include pre existing conditions 3 months from start date.
Premium is about $ 500 pm .

And under 65, many would could be retired and not fancy 40 quarters work.

MA is the oddity, it will be interesting to see if it continues at $500 per person there has to be major subsidies.

And of course even in MA for 2 $12,000pa is just the starting cost.

And of course you have to pay for Medicare, cost unknow, cover unknown, and probably would be in the poor house by then.

Here in MA there are plans for over 65's without state help that cost $324.00 per month... with State help from $0.00 to $324.00 depending on income ....... they offer very good coverage and include RX... and as it is State law that everyone has to have health insurance even immigrants can benefit from the state assisted programs as long as you have a SSN...

Maybe other states will follow MA...

Kez

I tend to agree with you RJ.

One thing to throw in the mix is that they are not throwing this away. They are changing the structure. From what I understand it can take 10 years to petition for a person to come over. By changing to the point system it includes everyone who is not a sponsored employee.

We do not yet know what value they will place on "family ties". I think if we focus our energy on creating a higher value on family ties, it would then be easier to get family over.

For example a person with "family ties" to the US should have a higher value than say an unskilled worker.

I am trying to look at this in a unbiased manner. This new change does have the potential to make it easier. Plus separating the "parental visa" takes this sub group out from the competing people.

IMO

Buy Medicare? What do you mean, buy? Isn't Medicare something all U.S. citizens are entitled to,
once they reach a certain age?

What about Medicaid?

You have to have paid 40 quarters into the Medicare program to claim medicare when you reach 65 or become disabled.... that works out to be 10 years worth of work.... if you do not have 40 quarters you can buy medicare coverage on a sliding scale depending on how many quarters you have....

Kez

Ah....I see. That makes sense.

What about Medicaid so? Can you qualify if you claim no income?

My understanding is that Medicaid is one of the state benefits that your sponsor would be asked to pay back... if you claimed it...

Kez

How would the state even know that I had a sponsor?

Also, doesn't the sponsorship obligation end when the sponsored alien naturalizes?

mawilson,

Yes.

Yodrak

In that case, one could apply for Medicaid, no?

Kez,

I believe that a married person can be credited with their spouses quarters as well as their own, which could shorten the time to 5 years if both are working. And stay married. The accounting is done when the need arises, so a spouse's quarters are lost if a divorce comes before the accounting.

Yodrak

Most of the US Healthcare systems are pretty basic, I know too many people with major financial issues with insurance. You need money as well, lots of it, or best of all do not get sick.

I have so far avoided a Doctor for 3 years, annual checks accepted. Certainly not something could put my parents through who do have medical issues, I have another year before I could sponsor them anyway.

I have read a bit about the MA scheme, there are issues with it, it will be interesting to see how it develops.

I can only say where I am this is not on anybodys agenda, the cost implications for a State budget are very large.

I have also read a bit about the CA proposal, but the numbers made no long term sense. If CA could make it work, perhaps it would be possible.

Actually that is part f the problem, it is a National not State issue.

With the US economy the way it is, just can not see it happening.

Yodrak and others, thanks for the response. I think I agree with you that there are some who may want to come to the US for not so very 'noble' reasons and then use every means possible to get the rest of their families here. However, the point is not the motivation of these individuals. USCIS will weed that out, but the very concept of limiting the rights of US "citizens". This is unacceptable. According to the Constitution, the "pursuit of happiness" is fundamental right of every US citizen, and this must logically include in most peoples cases a "unification of their families", even if some do not care about their families. I understand if someone is here on a visa, etc, there are certain limitations, which are well within the Law, but why boundaries for US citizens? That is unlawful. When the first immigrants came here from various countries, they did not all come here by themselves, though many did in the waves of the 20th century, but they came with their whole families.

For anyone who says that the US must not allow people in who cannot produce a certain amount of efficiency, who are they to judge others ? If someone is handicapped and is a child of a US citizen, they should not be allowed to live with their parents? Or if they are mentally ill? Or has polio? This is not saving the economy! But eugenics! In the 20th century Hitler employed eugenics to weed out the sick, elderly, mentally ill, handicapped and of course many Jews! I am surprised that someone would say this today, but why should I, when individuals no longer place value on human lives! (In response to quote from UK).

I understand that they are trying to put this cap because if they let 12 million illegal people become legal, they are going to have to do something about the families. But I would rather send them back home than separate their families, because guess what, its never going to happen! Either the government will let the families come in or they will come here illegally again.

Whatever the case, the decision to provide for your parents in their old age is a matter of conscience. "Honor your father and mother" is the first of the 10 commandments with a promise attached to it, "that you may live long". If I am a citizen of a country and my country does not allow me to freely follow the dictates of my conscience, then it is morally wrong, especially in a country like the United States, which was founded on the precept that "Congress shall not restrain the free exercise of 'religion'". Not every one who immigrates to the US and becomes a citizen does so for nefarious purposes. Some come here as refugees, others are married to US citizens, some come here to better their lives. If the Government thinks anyone worthy of making them a US citizen, they have no right to restrict any of the fundamental rights of these same citizens. The Constitution prohibits it.

I'm from a well-off country, college-educated and an English-speaker from birth, and if I had to get through under the points system do you know how many points I'd have? Thirty-three! My brother would have even less because he never finished his college degree and he does low-paid clerical work... he doesn't particularly WANT to move to the US but if he was to change his mind the points system means I can kiss seeing him again goodbye forever instead of just for ten years or so.

A major reason I came to the US instead of my fiance moving to Australia was the fact that Australia uses a points system for immigrants and John couldn't scrape up enough points to qualify to get in unless we were already married and I was sponsoring him (and since I don't work I was and am ineligable to be a sponsor...) Australia's excuse for being so hard on potential immigrants is the expense of maintaining their social welfare system and the limited resources of a very dry and isolated country... I don't see what America's excuse is at all.

Kajikit,


Forever? Neither of you could visit the other?


The expense of maintaining the social welfare system, which is why your husband had to sponsor you.

Yodrak

I am an only child and I hope to be able to sponsor my parents to move here once I am a citizen.... I could not just turn my back on my parents in their final days.... I would like them to be comfortable and have me around them all the time not just for 6 weeks twice a year...

Some of you have said that it should be down to the other family members to look after elderly parents but what if there is no other family.... should I beexpected to give up my home and my life here in the US to move back to my parents so that they can have the care that they should have and are not left to die alone????


Kez

Yodrak,

Not when a return ticket costs $2,500.

mawilson

mawilson,

Ahhhh - putting a price on brotherly love! So it's a question of priorities, not of possibilities.

Yodrak

Kez,

Well, you gave up your home and your life there to move here. If you did it once you can do it again, given sufficient motivation?

The circumstances of life change as time passes, and we adjust as necessary according to our individual priorities to make the best of things given those changing circumstances.

Yodrak

Yodrak,

Would you pursue a long-distance relationship with a woman from another country if there was
no possibility of ever bringing her here?

Why not? "Neither of you could visit the other?"

So yes, it is a question of priorities. The possibilities are not limitless either.

mawilson

One thing that makes me annoyed is not only that my BIL or MIL or whoever couldn't come here to live if they needed to, BUT what would stop them or anyone else from just getting a tourist visa, not going back, and doing what they need to do to get enough points for residency like what will happen for the 12 MILLION illegal immigrants in our country now? It's rewarding those who didn't play by the rules by penalizing those who did.

A lifetime ban (if caught) would probably stop them. (One of the proposed changes in the new bill.)