Jump to content

CatherineA

Members
  • Content count

    1,337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CatherineA

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Member # 197025

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • City
    Alexandria
  • State
    Virginia

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Adjustment of Status (pending)
  • Place benefits filed at
    National Benefits Center
  • Country
    Costa Rica

Immigration Timeline

Recent Profile Visitors

5,516 profile views
  1. Tried and failed for 13 years now. Aren't you so pleased to see where your USCIS fees are going to? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-decade-into-a-project-to-digitize-us-immigration-forms-just-1-is-online/2015/11/08/f63360fc-830e-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html?utm_term=.6e20bfced9c1
  2. It is 2018, get with the program: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fs
  3. There will be fewer jobs available. I'm talking demand for labor not demand for visas. The workers are supply. Less demand for labor= less incentive to risk life/ imprisonment/ pay lots of money to come here and probably not find a job= lowers supply of willing immigrant workers. Couple that with the higher enforcement for those who haven't gotten the memo generally and you're starting to attack the problem. Why don't we see illegal immigrants working in Silicon Valley tech companies, for example?
  4. I think that you and I both know that you are severely overstating the "few billion". If this isn't a conversation that we're going to take seriously and conduct in good faith, I'd rather not have it. If you'd rather have a ping-pong "discussion" full of thoughtless soundbites, then I guess we're finished here. You know as well as I do that there already exists a framework for temporary guest worker visas, and I suspect the types of jobs we're talking about here are H-2A and H-2B (temporary agriculture and non-agriculture, low skill). I'm not reinventing the wheel over here. I'd imagine that you'd be dealing with an increase in applications if there is an increase in visas available but even a tenfold increase won't get you anywhere close to a single billion let alone multiple. If you'd like to attempt a real conversation, here's a further explanation of the thought process-- These are the types of jobs filled by illegal immigrants, by and large and the only way for a non-family member to come and fill those positions is to go through the visa process which as low annual caps, or EWI and work under the table. I personally believe that most people are rational actors and most would choose the legal, get-a-visa route if they can, and they're not going to choose the illegal-risk-life-pay-lots-of-money route if they don't have a pretty good promise of something worthwhile waiting on the other side. So while I'm not going to defend EWI or non-immigrant visa abuse, I can at least see why this situation exists. Here, here's a job opportunity, you need this visa to go take it. Nope, can't have that visa but the job still exists wink, wink, nudge, nudge, basically. This is why going after the *employers* would be a huge component of this. Some H2B holders find themselves passed over for work in favor of those here illegally because the employer can at a *minimum* avoid paying payroll taxes on their wages, but also likely pays lower wages in general. Turn those here illegally into H2B holders and everyone is better off (unless your aim is simply to stem immigration in general and not illegal immigration specifically, which if it is, that is an entirely different conversation). Maybe run it similar to the H1B program-- annual cap and close off to new applications once the cap is reached. But because of the temporary/seasonal nature of the H-2A and H-2B jobs, maybe split the annual cap up quarterly, maybe twice a year, whatever works. Clearly, anything short of completely open borders isn't going to stop the "supply side" of willing worker immigrants. But increasing existing caps to meet demand sure won't hurt-- it will just decrease demand on our side, keep wages higher on our side (good for US workers too) and eliminate the disincentive to go home after the temporary work is over/ eliminate need/desire to have family join, at least for those who make the cap. AND if you want to steal a page from Bush's failed proposal (failed for other reasons, not this financial piece) and allow their Social Security contributions to transfer to their home country's social security system (thus providing a financial incentive to go home when the time has run out/ at least get rid of a disincentive to leave), we'd still have the payroll taxes from the employer in our system (which we are not getting now), but not the individual to support when they reach retirement age. That, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of guest workers over dozens of years, and we've actually got a good thing going for ourselves. Add in sort of [mandatory but tax-free] (unsure if either is legal/possible but hey, it was part of the proposal) savings account that can only be accessed upon return to home country--we don't know, no one could get past the "too mean to the immigrants" and "not tough enough on the illegals" bit to let that idea flesh out. Because the fee-funded USCIS can't possibly hire more people with the "billions" of new applicants' fees and the penalty fees imposed on the millions of in-country applicants, right? Or we couldn't control the flow of applications with annual caps like the existing programs (!) but simply increase the caps to meet demand? As in... what I've been talking about? Possibly?
  5. That's why there would be applications, not just a get your ticket and arrive. In part, yes. As I said, there's obviously some supply/demand going on here otherwise people wouldn't keep coming. Just the "system" we've got, if you can even call it that, incentivizes crossing illegally and working under the table because there isn't a legal path (or enough visas in the legal path) to fill labor demand. I'm not saying tear down the border and make it a free-for-all, and I have put a lot of thought into this, and some time into explaining that thought, and it would be nice if you could attempt to do the same in reply, or not reply at all. Your comment as is really just illustrates my point that "we" aren't thinking about this from anywhere but our own pre-existing political camps, which has gotten us exactly NOWHERE since Reagan and that some people have more of an issue with the "immigration" part than the "illegal" part.
  6. I agree that we can't continue on status quo because then we'll just face this same issue in 15+ years. But I disagree that the base will be fine with DACA itself (forget a DACA-style program and some form of amnesty) with or without a hammer drop. Throughout the campaign, and all over the airwaves/ conservative news and "news" sites, and heck even back to the implementation of DACA itself, this has been decried as unacceptable amnesty, "illegal is illegal no exceptions" etc etc. I really think that that drumbeat has been hit far too hard for far too long for many of the true believers to change their minds on this. I also don't necessarily think that enforcement is 100% the only way to go here. While YES, obviously more is needed, I do think that we may need to examine the reasons for illegal immigration and see if any of that can be addressed, and possibly open up legal paths where none currently exist. That will keep the "illegal" part out of it (but keep the "immigration" in it, which a lot of the base takes serious issue with). Obviously, there is a supply-and-demand thing going on here, we clearly have the need for labor (people don't generally come here to sit around unemployed, and a lot of people left during the recession). I think there may be some truth to the idea that if we had an easier to access/ more availability of a guest worker program, this could help to solve it. Many people may really just want to come for 6 months/year, and leave their families behind but the inability to move back and forth like that makes it preferable to just come illegally and stay, and maybe eventually bring the whole family. I know we have temporary worker programs but clearly not enough visas and/or enough policing of the employers who hire outside of the program. I think that the steps/desire to further limit legal immigration is not only unkind but is counterproductive to the aim of stemming legal immigration. The heart of the issue seems to be that we're looking at this as an either/or approach, mostly based on political philosophy/ideology. When really, a blended approach may work much better. I myself wouldn't be against having all 11 million people here illegally have the chance at AOS. But they need to prove a clean criminal history (false documentation aside), no (or minimal/ long ago) history of government assistance, pay a fine in addition to USCIS fees (and the fines can go toward getting rid of USCIS's constant backlog) and, perhaps, if entered without inspection, return to their home country for a consular interview, just to hit home the fact that you cannot enter this country without a visa and stay. That way, in the future, when people learn about how their neighbor's cousin's friend (which we all know is how most people in this world "learn" about US immigration) went to the US and 15 years later just got to stay and now he's a citizen, the story involves a giant and expensive headache and full knowledge that the law is different now. If you don't (or can't-- welfare and/or criminal history) go through these steps by a certain date, you're deportable and that's that. I then would cut off AOS from most non-immigrant visas (I'd list them but I'm sure I'd forget some key ones-- basically, AOS from student visas make sense, tourist visas do not, temporary worker somewhere in the middle), or if not cut it off, make it cost $5000, $10,000, whatever you want-- that way those who are using it as an end-run around a K1/CR1 can pay for that convenience, those who have been long out of status on B2s can pay to avoid a ban and those with a legitimate change in mind can figure out what's worth more to them. I would open up more legal paths to at least temporary work, possibly with the ability to self-petition after a certain number of years and proof of stability/suitability. I think that a merit based system is also a great idea but not at the expense of the family visas. I would not mess around too much with family visas, except possibly getting rid of the sibling petition route (which I've never heard a good explanation for)-- siblings can try for merit based. Or if you insist on scrapping the family route, add points to the merit system for family and consider some sort of "retirement" visa for parents of US citizens-- no work permits, and no Medicare, minimum age for it (care for elderly parents IS a real concern, not an excuse). Then enforce as much as you want. i think an actual physical wall is ridiculous and a giant waste of money and has terrible PR out there in the world but to each their own I suppose. Harsh, yet open. Blended.
  7. Yes, this does bear repeating. Just answer CBP's questions -- they may not ask what their plans are and it's never a good idea to offer information that is not asked for. And have the proof of ties to back up the claim that they are planning to marry and not stay and adjust. Everything should be just fine, they are nowhere near the first person to do this and won't be the last and it was and remains perfectly within the scope of permissibly. If they DO "change their mind" and stay and adjust, THAT is where future visa problems could arise. But that's not the case here and also the people who marry, stay, and adjust don't generally need visas in the future so this is a bit more bark than bite but certainly shows what this administration thinks of this loophole. I'm a bit surprised they haven't shut down the ability to adjust from non-immigrant visas (yet?).
  8. Actually, yes! Foreign related stuff (foreign earned income, ITINs etc I got help with that here) but I had a brief stint working for a congressional committee that was related to taxation issues so got some good basics there. PM what you need
  9. Rule number 3, don't pick a factual fight with a librarian. (A gov docs librarian, at that!)
  10. You are being absurd. Please show evidence in the FAM that marrying (and not adjusting) on a visitor visa IS an issue. If it is an issue, there will be a written rule about it (not the other way around-- they don't give you a list of what you CAN do, just a list of what you can't). In good faith, here I am providing the section of the FAM that was updated by the cable linked previously. Here it is in searchable format: https://fam.state.gov/ Enjoy.
  11. You are quoting a journalist's reporting of a diplomatic cable. Not the cable itself. Here is the cable itself. And here is the relevant language from it "3) marrying a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States while in a nonimmigrant visa classification that prohibits immigrant intent" (emphasis mine). As I said, this was likely left out of the news piece because people don't really get the distinction. It is clearly an error or a bad judgement call by the journalist, but we all know better. What this is doing is allowing State to do what it can to crack down on the phenomenon of people entering to "visit their boyfriend" and then "have a change of heart" and "suddenly" "decide" to marry, stay, and adjust. USCIS, cannot, as decided in two different court cases, take this into account when deciding to grant AOS, even if they are pretty sure that you willfully lied to get the visa and to gain entry. The US government and this administration in particular still doesn't like the fact that this loophole exists and is frequently exploited and so is using what little power STATE has in the situation to punish people for using a non-immigrant visa to immigrate-- by threatening to withhold future visas (if ever needed). It's never been a problem to simply marry on a tourist visa, there IS no other visa for it. It's the marrying and adjusting part that is the problem. On top of it, OP's boyfriend won't be entering on a visa so none of it applies to him in the first place.
  12. Exactly. Because there is no marriage visitor visa like in the UK (a visa to use specifically to get married-- even destination wedding folks need one), using a visit visa or VWP is fine. The implication, likely left out of the news piece, because people don't really get the distinction anyway, is the marrying *and staying and adjusting status*. OP here is fine. She's asking because she doesn't want to break some rule and then have their CR/IR-1 denied in the future, which is a smart thing to check in on. IMO, people with visa-free or visa-waived privileges are the ones who dig themselves in to the biggest heaps of trouble simply because they're so used to visa-free travel and/or find "creative" ways around what seems unnecessarily complicated and then have massive and unnecessary fallout. OP here is smart to avoid that, most people don't think to.
  13. I've had success at the state level gettinga DMV employee in trouble (not fired, yet) for refusing to accept my husband's green card as proof of legal presence. I know that USCIS has no accountability but it doesn't hurt to bring it up, repeatedly, and make them deal with it. During the whole TSC backlog, we successfully got them to transfer the workload to CSC, and they had a stakeholders conference call about their timeline reporting as a result of us, and the immigration lawyer community's constant complaints about their fudging/lying about the "official" timelines that resulted in some notable changes (if not improvements). At a bare minimum, start a complaint in the right place and make it someone's pain in the butt job to formally answer it. I don't expect to see the money but I'm fine with forcing someone to recognize the problem rather than just taking it silently, happy that I'll eventually get my end goal. to each their own.
  14. Yes yes, I am aware, I lived through a whole lot of USCIS nonsense, at every step of this process. But there is a point to be made that if you never receive that which you have paid for, USCIS should maybe be accountable. Just as they shoild have been when TSC was averaging 210 days for NOA2 and CSC was averaging 21. Or their continued "lost medicals" snafu. But of course we all know that USCIS isn't accountable for anything so here we are, shelling out a whole lot of cash for work they won't perform.
  15. Ha. I figured this would start happening. Personally, I'd ask for my 751 filing fee back if that's the case.
×