Official White House Petition, need your signatureS!!

[listeria 14]

May be becuase of recession people have gone back to their home countries. But look at the demand for EB categories -it continues to grow and that represents only principal applicants.

If you are worried too much about too many people means the system gets congested- it gets congested whether you have pople living here permanently or temporarily on non-iimigrant visas. Imagaine dot com boom and US allowed more than 200k HIBs alone (plus 2 dependent per applicant means, 400 k people) for few years.

All I am asking is that US could give B1/B2 to spouse of LPRs or if wait is more than 180 days, reinstall V visa or bring a new visa category-W visa as proposed recently.

LPR came to this country legally and they know their spouse will return back as soon their B1/B2 expires and come back after few months.

Lately I have had so many friends who are on F-1/J-1/H-1/L1, go to their home country, get married and bring in their spouses right away. I know it takes atleast 7-9 months for USC to bring in spouses.

The CURRENT DISCUSSION is ALL ABOUT updating the OLD DYSFUNCTIONAL Immigration system. Imagaine due to ineeficiency of USCIS/DOS(NVC), how many visas get wasted every single year-that many LPRs separated from their wives/husband/children.

Dude get your facts right not 90% of H1 and L1 get GC.... Lately I have seen lot of them return back, lot of their new and renewal of applications are rejected.

Living on H1 / L1 is not as easy it sounds, when your life is in limbo or your employeer controls your life you will realise how is life on H1 / L1.

Short term visas were given out until ppl started abusing them and thats when they had to stop them, can you give me reason why they had to stop the short term visa? you know the reasons very well and there is nothing like LPR turned into USC and they dont want other LPR...... mainly this forum is always helping ppl to navigate thru the waters of immigration.

Look at the older members... Kathryn, CW, Just Bob, Jim, Boiler, Harpa, My little, Magical and lot more spend their personal time to help other ppl thru process of immigrating.

All these ppl have gone thru their journey and none of them is getting paid to help ppl here (guys let me know if u are... I am not....)

[jhp 10]

I have seen here so many people TALKING againts F2A. these so called people were LPRs once and now became USC. they want rest all LPRs suffer the sam epath they went thro.

Immigrants against Immigrants?

ALL LPR's here not asking for an GCs given right away to their spouses and minor children- All they are asking is to stay together-come to US under onon-immigrant visas like B1 for short term or "V" visa or the propsed "W" visa. these are temp.visas and they will wait in line until their turn to get GCs.

I can see whole array of all non-sense discussions that talka about H4B/L2 allowed because they are non-immigrant visas. Remember 90% of H1B/L1 will eventually become LPR- and they are allowed to bring in their spouses.

However, I do beleive, the law/quota was not created to separate families- but it was created long time ago and never gotten updated to reflect the CURRENT situations. Politicians never care for it because we, the LPR do not have money to lobby unlike people who stay illegally...

totally agree............

Edited October 12, 2011 by jhp

[kamimitsu 6]

For me, the issue is not getting my wife's GC early: it's that there is no guarantee that she can come to visit me while we wait (and any visit I make to her country pushes my becoming a citizen farther back). I don't want to spend $1500 on a ticket to the US only to have the immigration officer to tell her to get back on the plane back to Japan (which is likely under the current governance).

I don't think the petition is designed to circumvent or abolish the laws governing the processing of green cards. What it does seek (in my reading) is some method for families to be united (if only temporarily) while the process of takes place. Should the petition garner the necessary signatures, all it will do is force the White House to consider the issue and look at enacting some means to keep families united while the process takes place... I don't think anyone believes it is intended to suggest removing all restrictions on F2A Green Card issuance.

[visapetition 2]

So you think if govt opens the gate and lets everyone in... it is not going to impact the economy?

Respectfully, this is not what I am saying at all. Letting more people come legally _will_ impact the economy, that's a given. What I am doing is calling to doubt the default assumption a lot of people seem to have, namely that it is going to be necessarily an overall _negative_ impact.

Let's look at some of your objections to that idea:

More ppl means more ppl need more jobs......more infrastructure, more cars more roads, more medical needs

Basic economics tells us about the law of supply and demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

When there's a demand (infrastructure, cars, medical needs, food, entertainment etc.) - there's going to be a person, business or businesses that see it as their opportunity. They will try to fill that demand by producing more of the product/service. To do that effectively, they will need workforce, raw materials and related business operation products and services (office supplies, logistics, you name it).

The workforce they will get by offering openings to the people, thus creating the coveted jobs you mention.

The raw materials they will buy, helping the industries that extract them.

The business operation products and services will also be bought from other companies providing them, helping them to stay in business.

The equilibrium principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium) tells us that these will tend to balance out any impact the new immigrants might have.

You thinkg illegal immigration drives down the wages ..... good so when you have 100s of thousands of ppl looking for job would your wages not drive down? Would the employeer not have the option to choice?

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: a spouse with an engineering degree legally joins her permanent resident husband in the United States. She gets a job paying $2000, whereas a U.S. citizen, wanting $5000, doesn't get it.

Where does the $3000 difference go then? The employer can either devote it to discretionary expenses - buying goods and services. This helps the businesses he buys from.

Or, the employer can create another job, paying $3000 per month. That's two jobs where there used to be just one. More jobs - less unemployment; where's the wrong in that?

Also, because the product is now cheaper to produce, the business can sell it for less, and the U.S. citizen from before can easily opt for a $3000 job and still be able to lead a comfortable life.

Everyone is happy, everyone is employed and families are not separated.

P.S. And, by the way, this:

unfortunately govt does not tax per person in your family, in fact your tax would go down as you now more deduction.

Means less money for govt and they will have to provide more with less money.

... is false. Once the beneficiary becomes a permanent resident (gets his or her green card), they pay the taxes like everyone else. I should know, my parent is a permanent resident and Form 1040 is a yearly pain.

[Harsh_77 716]

May be becuase of recession people have gone back to their home countries. But look at the demand for EB categories -it continues to grow and that represents only principal applicants.

If you are worried too much about too many people means the system gets congested- it gets congested whether you have pople living here permanently or temporarily on non-iimigrant visas. Imagaine dot com boom and US allowed more than 200k HIBs alone (plus 2 dependent per applicant means, 400 k people) for few years.

All I am asking is that US could give B1/B2 to spouse of LPRs or if wait is more than 180 days, reinstall V visa or bring a new visa category-W visa as proposed recently.

LPR came to this country legally and they know their spouse will return back as soon their B1/B2 expires and come back after few months.

Lately I have had so many friends who are on F-1/J-1/H-1/L1, go to their home country, get married and bring in their spouses right away. I know it takes atleast 7-9 months for USC to bring in spouses.

The CURRENT DISCUSSION is ALL ABOUT updating the OLD DYSFUNCTIONAL Immigration system. Imagaine due to ineeficiency of USCIS/DOS(NVC), how many visas get wasted every single year-that many LPRs separated from their wives/husband/children.

I understand what you are saying, the immigration system could be dysfunctional and the fix for it is not just opening the flood gates.

Maybe in your case you can say your spouse might not violate the visa terms but there are 100s and 1000s that enter US using the temp B1/2 and continue to stay here after their visa has expired.

Yea I am worried as I would not be in favor of opening the flood gates and making all the dates current and hence I would not support any such campaign either.

There was a reason why there was a set number of visas to be issued each year.

Lot of those H1 folks have returned back, lot of the companies have stopped filing GC for their employees on H1 so you comparing the H1 situation from 11 years back does not make any sense.

I have friends whose H1 were not renewed even though they were still working for the same company all the time.

[Harsh_77 716]

Respectfully, this is not what I am saying at all. Letting more people come legally _will_ impact the economy, that's a given. What I am doing is calling to doubt the default assumption a lot of people seem to have, namely that it is going to be necessarily an overall _negative_ impact.

Let's look at some of your objections to that idea:

Basic economics tells us about the law of supply and demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

When there's a demand (infrastructure, cars, medical needs, food, entertainment etc.) - there's going to be a person, business or businesses that see it as their opportunity. They will try to fill that demand by producing more of the product/service. To do that effectively, they will need workforce, raw materials and related business operation products and services (office supplies, logistics, you name it).

The workforce they will get by offering openings to the people, thus creating the coveted jobs you mention.

The raw materials they will buy, helping the industries that extract them.

The business operation products and services will also be bought from other companies providing them, helping them to stay in business.

The equilibrium principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium) tells us that these will tend to balance out any impact the new immigrants might have.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: a spouse with an engineering degree legally joins her permanent resident husband in the United States. She gets a job paying $2000, whereas a U.S. citizen, wanting $5000, doesn't get it.

Where does the $3000 difference go then? The employer can either devote it to discretionary expenses - buying goods and services. This helps the businesses he buys from.

Or, the employer can create another job, paying $3000 per month. That's two jobs where there used to be just one. More jobs - less unemployment; where's the wrong in that?

Also, because the product is now cheaper to produce, the business can sell it for less, and the U.S. citizen from before can easily opt for a $3000 job and still be able to lead a comfortable life.

Everyone is happy, everyone is employed and families are not separated.

P.S. And, by the way, this:

... is false. Once the beneficiary becomes a permanent resident (gets his or her green card), they pay the taxes like everyone else. I should know, my parent is a permanent resident and Form 1040 is a yearly pain.

You hypothetical scenario is an ideal day scenario; unfortunately it does not work that way.

Your parents are paying the taxes coz they are earning. What I am saying is if you have a household of 4 parents + 2 kids govt does not tax you on the number 4.

If out of 4 husband is working he gets credit for kids + wife thus reducing his tax, in fact kids would be going to school for which tax payers have paid.

So lets say if guy was making 10k and he was paying 3k as tax which was going towards community, city, country. Now if his wife and kids join he would not be paying the 3k in tax as he would get tax credit. Yet kids would go to school for which someone else would be paying.

Lot of you have been talking about H1 and L1, but you don’t realize how much they add to SSN, they would never be eligible for SSN money yet they are required to pay in the fund.

[visapetition 2]

You hypothetical scenario is an ideal day scenario; unfortunately it does not work that way.

Your parents are paying the taxes coz they are earning. What I am saying is if you have a household of 4 parents + 2 kids govt does not tax you on the number 4.

If out of 4 husband is working he gets credit for kids + wife thus reducing his tax, in fact kids would be going to school for which tax payers have paid.

So lets say if guy was making 10k and he was paying 3k as tax which was going towards community, city, country. Now if his wife and kids join he would not be paying the 3k in tax as he would get tax credit. Yet kids would go to school for which someone else would be paying.

Here I agree with you. My scenario is for a perfectly free market situation. In the U.S. there's a number of social programs (I do not vouch to say whether it is good or bad here, that's a different argument) that are hardly sustainable as it is, like Social Security with baby boomers retiring en masse. True - more burden on these programs from new arrivals, who have not been paying taxes from the beginning, will have serious negative impacts.

The solution would be to limit the access of permanent residents to these programs until they naturalize, like it is already limited with regard to direct government support (the burden is placed on the affidavit signer). Then you'd be able to let more permanent residents in, but would also get some people objecting along the lines of "What, my baby cannot go to the public school?" or "What, I do not get the tax credit?". Can't please everyone.

But I'll tell you something else - while some would want to have a cake and it eat too, most of us here would gladly give away those privileges and more for 5 years, sacrifice access to any program the pundits tell us we need to sacrifice, if only we would be able to spend these 5 years close to our loved ones. Anyone would tell you that if there's a person you love, you know that any time it is better to go through the hardship together than to lead a well-to-do life alone, separated by thousands of miles from the person(s) for whom we live and the memory of whose warmth is the only thing that keeps us going.

And life in the United States, even with all the social programs and government handouts removed, is still a much better life than most of us are getting in places where we come from. When you do not rely on the government for support, you are only getting as much as you yourself earn, an _opportunity_ - the only road open to you then is to be a self-made man. And isn't this what America is all about?

Lot of you have been talking about H1 and L1, but you don’t realize how much they add to SSN, they would never be eligible for SSN money yet they are required to pay in the fund.

I concede that people specifically coming to work are a likelier group to benefit the economy than essentially random family ties. But let's not forget that H1 and L1 are dual intent visas, so saying 'would never be eligible' is rather harsh.

Also, let's not forget an ethical dimension of all of this. Who says the F2A limit should be 114,200 and not 114,201? Has someone done a back of the envelope calculation and determined that this is what will least likely harm the economy? Or are these quotas remnants of racist times long ago, when the goal was to keep the Asians out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924)?

Why do per-country caps still exist today? Isn't this the definition of discriminatory treatment - against people in India, Mexico, China, Philippines?

All we ask for is to be treated equally, to have equal chance to work hard, to support our families, in short, _equality_. And isn't _this_ what America is all about?

To open the borders completely is just a wistful fantasy of mine - the goal of the petition at hand is much simpler, a more pragmatic and humane goal - to let the immediate families be together. We do not ask President Barack Obama to let everyone in, just our most beloved - the spouses and children, and it would be fine with me if there will be checks and limits in place to prevent this move from bringing in more and more immigrants (for example, put a 10 year limit on further petitions by new arrivals). But please, give us mercy, remove the restrictions that prevent spouses and children of legal permanent residents from being reunited with them.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Here I agree with you. My scenario is for a perfectly free market situation. In the U.S. there's a number of social programs (I do not vouch to say whether it is good or bad here, that's a different argument) that are hardly sustainable as it is, like Social Security with baby boomers retiring en masse. True - more burden on these programs from new arrivals, who have not been paying taxes from the beginning, will have serious negative impacts.

Totally irrelevant, and not the reason for the numerical limits.

As an aside, the Social Security program has taken in more than it's paid out in every year of it's existence except for 2010. If the economy weren't tanked then it would have been flush in 2010, as well. There should be a large reserve in the Social Security trust fund as the result of decades of overfunding through payroll taxes, but that's not the case. Congress started borrowing money from the trust fund with a promise to repay. To date, they've not paid any of that borrowed money back. When you hear politicians citing looming deadlines when the Social Security Trust Fund will be bankrupt they are presuming that the IOU's left in the fund by Congress would actually be repaid.

The solution would be to limit the access of permanent residents to these programs until they naturalize, like it is already limited with regard to direct government support (the burden is placed on the affidavit signer). Then you'd be able to let more permanent residents in, but would also get some people objecting along the lines of "What, my baby cannot go to the public school?" or "What, I do not get the tax credit?". Can't please everyone.

They already do limit access, and it doesn't apply only to immigrants. Anyone who wants to collect Social Security retirement benefits needs at least 40 quarters of work credit through the SSA. If you don't pay in then you won't be getting paid back. The exceptions are Social Security disability benefits and SSI. Disability benefits are also funded by payroll taxes. SSI is federal welfare.

This is something everyone sponsoring an immigrant should consider. A US citizen sponsoring an elderly parent should know that their parent isn't going to get Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare after they come here.

Public schools are in serious trouble right now, but immigrants aren't primarily to blame for this. Tax revenues are down sharply. Income tax revenues have dropped because of the high unemployment, and property taxes have dropped because of the housing market crash. With or without immigrants, public schools are severely underfunded.

But I'll tell you something else - while some would want to have a cake and it eat too, most of us here would gladly give away those privileges and more for 5 years, sacrifice access to any program the pundits tell us we need to sacrifice, if only we would be able to spend these 5 years close to our loved ones. Anyone would tell you that if there's a person you love, you know that any time it is better to go through the hardship together than to lead a well-to-do life alone, separated by thousands of miles from the person(s) for whom we live and the memory of whose warmth is the only thing that keeps us going.

There are ways that Congress could have accommodated this, but they didn't. For example, a temporary visa for intending immigrants that allows them to remain in the US with their sponsoring family member until their priority dates become current. The caveat would have to be that they can't get a work permit or green card until their priority dates are current, and they'd have to pay for any tax supported services they use, including public schools. Remember that one of the intentions of numerical limits is to manage the impact that immigrants have on the people who are already here. If I was writing the legislation for this visa then I'd also require the sponsor to provide medical insurance for the alien.

I think you have a better chance of getting Congress to create a visa class for intending immigrants who are waiting for their priority dates to become current then you do of getting Congress to eliminate the numerical limits. Those limits exist for a number of reasons. The first quotas were established by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, and the primary intention was to control the disproportionate number of immigrants coming from Europe. The quotas were reduced and made permanent by the Immigration Act of 1924. Interestingly, neither of those acts imposed quotas on immigrants from Latin America. There simply weren't very many Latin American immigrants in the US at the time. The law has been rewritten and revised several times since then, but a system of numerical limits has always been part of it. Curiously, in the original Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 it was the one of the primary goals of Congress to restrict the influx of "undesirables" and people with political goals contrary to the interests of the United States - in other words, communists and communist sympathizers. The numerical limits have been revised numerous times since then, for a variety of reasons, but being a member of the communist party is still an inadmissibility.

And life in the United States, even with all the social programs and government handouts removed, is still a much better life than most of us are getting in places where we come from. When you do not rely on the government for support, you are only getting as much as you yourself earn, an _opportunity_ - the only road open to you then is to be a self-made man. And isn't this what America is all about?

I concede that people specifically coming to work are a likelier group to benefit the economy than essentially random family ties. But let's not forget that H1 and L1 are dual intent visas, so saying 'would never be eligible' is rather harsh.

Also, let's not forget an ethical dimension of all of this. Who says the F2A limit should be 114,200 and not 114,201? Has someone done a back of the envelope calculation and determined that this is what will least likely harm the economy? Or are these quotas remnants of racist times long ago, when the goal was to keep the Asians out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924)?

Why do per-country caps still exist today? Isn't this the definition of discriminatory treatment - against people in India, Mexico, China, Philippines?

All we ask for is to be treated equally, to have equal chance to work hard, to support our families, in short, _equality_. And isn't _this_ what America is all about?

To open the borders completely is just a wistful fantasy of mine - the goal of the petition at hand is much simpler, a more pragmatic and humane goal - to let the immediate families be together. We do not ask President Barack Obama to let everyone in, just our most beloved - the spouses and children, and it would be fine with me if there will be checks and limits in place to prevent this move from bringing in more and more immigrants (for example, put a 10 year limit on further petitions by new arrivals). But please, give us mercy, remove the restrictions that prevent spouses and children of legal permanent residents from being reunited with them.

The law strongly favors immigrants with marketable job skills, and it's been this way for many decades. Family based visas are a significant exception to this.

The per-country limits are not discriminatory because they treat everyone equally. The 7% cap applies to every country. The reason that India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines have longer waiting times is because those countries are oversubscribed. Would it be fair to someone from Pakistan (for example) to have to wait years longer because they had to wait in the same line as the huge number of people from those four countries? Or, is it more fair to move the excess number of people from those four countries into a separate line and make them wait a little longer in order to give everyone else a more reasonable wait?

I have no argument against allowing spouses and minor children of permanent residents to be united more quickly, but I'm firmly opposed to any effort to eliminate the numerical limits. I'd be much more amenable to a special visa class for family preference immigrants waiting for their priority dates to become current, as long as it didn't allow for a work permit, and that any tax supported benefits they receive be paid in full by the sponsor. In other words, they would be treated like visitors until the United States is ready to assimilate them.

[Chittagong 11]

I understand what you are saying, the immigration system could be dysfunctional and the fix for it is not just opening the flood gates.

Maybe in your case you can say your spouse might not violate the visa terms but there are 100s and 1000s that enter US using the temp B1/2 and continue to stay here after their visa has expired.

Yea I am worried as I would not be in favor of opening the flood gates and making all the dates current and hence I would not support any such campaign either.

There was a reason why there was a set number of visas to be issued each year.

Lot of those H1 folks have returned back, lot of the companies have stopped filing GC for their employees on H1 so you comparing the H1 situation from 11 years back does not make any sense.

I have friends whose H1 were not renewed even though they were still working for the same company all the time.

Actually USC is cheating the system to bring girl friend as k1 visa and never complete the immigration process & staying illegally forever. I think you got my point brother.

[RICARDO4EVA2 194]

Actually USC is cheating the system to bring girl friend as k1 visa and never complete the immigration process & staying illegally forever. I think you got my point brother.

not cheating the system....

The law strongly favors immigrants with marketable job skills, and it's been this way for many decades. Family based visas are a significant exception to this.

The per-country limits are not discriminatory because they treat everyone equally. The 7% cap applies to every country. The reason that India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines have longer waiting times is because those countries are oversubscribed. Would it be fair to someone from Pakistan (for example) to have to wait years longer because they had to wait in the same line as the huge number of people from those four countries? Or, is it more fair to move the excess number of people from those four countries into a separate line and make them wait a little longer in order to give everyone else a more reasonable wait?

I have no argument against allowing spouses and minor children of permanent residents to be united more quickly, but I'm firmly opposed to any effort to eliminate the numerical limits. I'd be much more amenable to a special visa class for family preference immigrants waiting for their priority dates to become current, as long as it didn't allow for a work permit, and that any tax supported benefits they receive be paid in full by the sponsor. In other words, they would be treated like visitors until the United States is ready to assimilate them.

[Harsh_77 716]

Are you seriously convinced no one would come along the line and start another campaign saying it is unfair and unjust and that they do not get the tax credit for 5 years as per your suggested idea, while a USC gets the tax credit for their kids and wife?

LPRs would claim they starting new life in new country and not getting a tax break would be undue burden on them.

Then what is the govt supposed to do?

Who comes up with visa number, there is someone who is crunching the numbers keeping up with example some countries are allowed in lottery and some are not H1 visas are capped B1/2 are capped L1s are capped the numbers might be public knowledge or not.

Is it discrimination? Not really would you let anyone enter your house? No you would make a decision based on certain things whom to let in the house and whom not to.

Can the person you did not let in claim discrimnination?

[Harsh_77 716]

Actually USC is cheating the system to bring girl friend as k1 visa and never complete the immigration process & staying illegally forever. I think you got my point brother.

I never said anything about USC bringing someone on K1 and marrying and their spouse staying in US without doing an AOS.

So I am not sure wht the point is.

Even in the case you mentioned if USC brings a spouse and never does AOS means the spouse would be really limited, cannot work , cannot drive etc.

And not doing a AOS how is that cheating?

[Harsh_77 716]

Totally irrelevant, and not the reason for the numerical limits.

As an aside, the Social Security program has taken in more than it's paid out in every year of it's existence except for 2010. If the economy weren't tanked then it would have been flush in 2010, as well. There should be a large reserve in the Social Security trust fund as the result of decades of overfunding through payroll taxes, but that's not the case. Congress started borrowing money from the trust fund with a promise to repay. To date, they've not paid any of that borrowed money back. When you hear politicians citing looming deadlines when the Social Security Trust Fund will be bankrupt they are presuming that the IOU's left in the fund by Congress would actually be repaid.

They already do limit access, and it doesn't apply only to immigrants. Anyone who wants to collect Social Security retirement benefits needs at least 40 quarters of work credit through the SSA. If you don't pay in then you won't be getting paid back. The exceptions are Social Security disability benefits and SSI. Disability benefits are also funded by payroll taxes. SSI is federal welfare.

This is something everyone sponsoring an immigrant should consider. A US citizen sponsoring an elderly parent should know that their parent isn't going to get Social Security retirement benefits or Medicare after they come here.

Public schools are in serious trouble right now, but immigrants aren't primarily to blame for this. Tax revenues are down sharply. Income tax revenues have dropped because of the high unemployment, and property taxes have dropped because of the housing market crash. With or without immigrants, public schools are severely underfunded.

There are ways that Congress could have accommodated this, but they didn't. For example, a temporary visa for intending immigrants that allows them to remain in the US with their sponsoring family member until their priority dates become current. The caveat would have to be that they can't get a work permit or green card until their priority dates are current, and they'd have to pay for any tax supported services they use, including public schools. Remember that one of the intentions of numerical limits is to manage the impact that immigrants have on the people who are already here. If I was writing the legislation for this visa then I'd also require the sponsor to provide medical insurance for the alien.

I think you have a better chance of getting Congress to create a visa class for intending immigrants who are waiting for their priority dates to become current then you do of getting Congress to eliminate the numerical limits. Those limits exist for a number of reasons. The first quotas were established by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, and the primary intention was to control the disproportionate number of immigrants coming from Europe. The quotas were reduced and made permanent by the Immigration Act of 1924. Interestingly, neither of those acts imposed quotas on immigrants from Latin America. There simply weren't very many Latin American immigrants in the US at the time. The law has been rewritten and revised several times since then, but a system of numerical limits has always been part of it. Curiously, in the original Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 it was the one of the primary goals of Congress to restrict the influx of "undesirables" and people with political goals contrary to the interests of the United States - in other words, communists and communist sympathizers. The numerical limits have been revised numerous times since then, for a variety of reasons, but being a member of the communist party is still an inadmissibility.

The law strongly favors immigrants with marketable job skills, and it's been this way for many decades. Family based visas are a significant exception to this.

The per-country limits are not discriminatory because they treat everyone equally. The 7% cap applies to every country. The reason that India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines have longer waiting times is because those countries are oversubscribed. Would it be fair to someone from Pakistan (for example) to have to wait years longer because they had to wait in the same line as the huge number of people from those four countries? Or, is it more fair to move the excess number of people from those four countries into a separate line and make them wait a little longer in order to give everyone else a more reasonable wait?

I have no argument against allowing spouses and minor children of permanent residents to be united more quickly, but I'm firmly opposed to any effort to eliminate the numerical limits. I'd be much more amenable to a special visa class for family preference immigrants waiting for their priority dates to become current, as long as it didn't allow for a work permit, and that any tax supported benefits they receive be paid in full by the sponsor. In other words, they would be treated like visitors until the United States is ready to assimilate them.

Yes Jim if it works it would be perfect, but you know this does not happen. There has been cases where ppl come on B1/2 specially got give birth in US and then they end up using the public funds. (This is seperate topic) What I am pointing to is how do you enforce such laws for spouse of LPR.

[PD is Current. 50]

May I ask how you and your spouse/children get the Green Card?

Did you go through H1B, GC and USC. Then married your wife after becoming USC?

Edited October 12, 2011 by PD is Current.

[PD is Current. 50]

Dude you knew the restriction of being LPR before you got married so don’t make is sound like you got the ####### deal.

Dude, lot of H1 holders their spouse and kids return back to their home country after their work is complete.

They are here on temp basis that’s the reason their spouse gets to come on H4 quickly, are you your spouse of kids ever going to go back?

Who told you there is no lines for spouse of USC, most spouse of USC spend 7-8 months in the line before they can enter US. That if their case is clean and straight forward, if one is from restricted country or has case with complication means ppl will spend year or sometimes even more in AP or other process.

K1 is to USC they have that option, if it was same for LPR as well then what would be difference between LPR and USC?

You were well aware of the laws and restriction of being LPR , so don’t cry sour grapes.

I just read this reply. Some people are just mean & arrogant.

I bet you would not say the same nasty words if you were in a F2A situation.

Why do I get a sense of some people who think they are all high and mighty after they become a USC. You have no respect for other people's feeling. To that, i feel sorry for you.

H1B spouse kids returning home has nothing to do with my point. my point is they get to come here and stay with their spouse. read carefully next time before you open your mouth talking like you know it all.

Are you seriously thinking 7-8 months is a freaking Line for USC spouse? you have no idea what you talking about. does USC spouse need to wait for a visa number? Is there an annual cap for them?