Official White House Petition, need your signatureS!!

[Athena June 37]

I see you were married in 2011, when you got married were you and your spouse not aware of this restriction?

Now after being aware of the restriction if you claim its unfair, then how is it that fair?

How is our awareness of the numerical limits related to the unfairness of the quotas? My husband and I were "lucky" enough to learn about them ten days after our engagement, and I can't describe the disappointment and despair we felt on that day. After seven years of long-distance relationship we had hoped to finally move in together and start a family; instead, we learnt that we'd either have to postpone all that by several years, my husband would have to give up his green card and his career in the US, or I would have to get an H1B visa - unfortunately it turned out that in the US, work in my field tends to be based on freelance contracts, and there was no way to get a work visa for that. I do wish that when my husband still had his H1B, he had been told about the quotas for LPR spouses - it might have encouraged him to propose a few years earlier

I am strongly opposed to any numerical limits for spouses and underaged children, and I don't see how they help controlling the flow of immigrants to the States. Eventually all priority dates will become current, or the petitioner becomes a citizen and upgrades the F2A petition, and the spouse and children will be able to immigrate. All the quotas do is make the process slower and cause a whole lot of heartache and money spent on flights, phone bills, etc, not to mention the money many petiotioners send to their families at home.

I do acknowledge that we have chosen this path voluntarily - to avoid separation, my husband and I could have decided to settle in his home country, my home country, my current country of residence, or a fourth EU country. For none of these would we have needed a visa, and we could have started our life together immediately. This option is still under consideration.

This petition is not asking the US to open its borders to everyone in this world. What we are asking is that those who have already been given permanent resident status in the US are allowed to have their immediate family with them without unnecessarily long wait times.

Unfortunately permanent residents and the beneficiaries such as me will not have the power to change American immigration laws. This will have to be done by the representatives selected by the US citizens. Even though I don't believe much will come out of this petition, I am still hoping that we will have enough signatures by the deadline to receive a response from the administration.

[Harsh_77 716]

Athena - I am not point or accusing, but for me to believe your husband was not aware of LPR and restriction them is hard to believe.

Especially since you mentioned he has got his LPR status via H1, which means he has been involved with immigration for years.

Most ppl in similar situation get married while their GC petition is being filed by their employer coz that would include the spouse and spouse gets the GC same time husband gets it.

I know eventually ppl in the queue will get visa to come, but just opening the flood gates and letting them all in once would not solve the problem but increase the problem.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Harsh_77

[Athena June 37]

My husband's H1B and green card applications were dealt with by the immigration lawyers at the company that hired him, and they didn't care to inform him about anything... And we were stupid enough to believe that getting a visa for me would be easier once he got his green card. For this we can of course only blame ourselves - we had looked into the rules but not carefully enough to know what a priority date is and how long the wait times are. I hope other H1B visa holders are wiser than us.

Anyway, we are luckier than most F2A filers as he can visit me in Germany every couple of months and I can visit him under the visa waiver program. Still, nothing would make me happier than see the numerical limits go. Or receiving another type of visa to be able to join him sooner than sometime in 2013-2014, without me having to ask my husband to give up a job that he loves and the career he has built over the years.

[visapetition 2]

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.

JimVaPhuong, thank you for remedying the ignorance as to the Social Security system and providing a more politically sound solution. A temporary visa would indeed accomplish the desired effect (bringing families together) and barring the beneficiaries from riding the system for free would also prevent a possible economic downfall. If there was a cause to bring this about, I would rally behind it enthusiastically.

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.

Is there any pending legislation that proposes something like this?

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.

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.

Other than:

- potential to increase unemployment and drive down the wages

- burden on the health care system

- other tax-supported services

... what does the list of common objections to removing the numerical limits, as seen by legislators today, include?

Am I correct in guessing that yours also includes issues of assimilation?

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?

By that definition (treating everyone equally), the limits are indeed not discriminatory.

What seems objectionable to me is this: you take Earth, draw lines on it and circumscribe the people living within those lines as belonging to one or the other country/nation. (Disclaimer: I realize this is not how the historical process actually works, here, however, I take a position of a neutral observer).

Then you have situations like this: take two border cities, say Dunga Bunga in Pakistan and Padampur in India. It's an 8 hour drive, people living in one could easily have friends and relatives in the other. Yet when two individuals with the same priority date stand in line for their visa, the one from Padampur would get it later, at some stages in Visa Bulletin history - significantly later, than the one in Dunga Bunga. Based on nothing more than the collective decision of people living within the respective circumscribed territories to apply for visa in the same category.

In short, why should someone from Padampur be held accountable / suffer because of someone from Mumbai just because both of them have 'India' attached to them? Is he his brother's / "countryman's" keeper?

The 7% cap is appealing in that it creates a pretty diverse immigrant body, but because of the misgivings I describe above, I think I would have no problem with a common line for everyone, irrespective of their country of origin.

Edited October 12, 2011 by visapetition

[AKSinghSingh79 143]

Why not?

Personally, I think there is nothing to indicate that more legal immigration is going to necessarily harm the economy. _Illegal_ immigration does harm it - through tax avoidance, driving down wages for everyone and other socioeconomic outcomes of huge numbers of people living a half-life under the radar. But what drove them into the shadow? The very quotas you are defending here.

See also my thoughts here: http://www.visajourn...ost__p__4946842

To think about their lifestyles, think about your own. They are all people, just like you. The criminal elements are a minority that can be stopped - heck, it will even create more jobs in law enforcement.

What you are proposing is absurd. The U.S. simply cannot support the world's entire impoverished population. Even if what you are saying from an economic standpoint is true, we do not have the natural resources to support the level of immigration you are suggesting. The U.S. is already struggling to maintain its current energy demands. Add a couple more million to that mix and we have an even greater energy crisis on our hands. Regardless, what you are suggesting is not going to happen. The quotas exist for a reason and they are not dissolving any time soon.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Is there any pending legislation that proposes something like this?

Not that I'm aware of.

Other than:

- potential to increase unemployment and drive down the wages

- burden on the health care system

- other tax-supported services

... what does the list of common objections to removing the numerical limits, as seen by legislators today, include?

Am I correct in guessing that yours also includes issues of assimilation?

I don't know. I haven't heard any legislators talk about this issue because I haven't seen any legislation proposed that would change the numerical limits. I suppose if legislation is introduced then we'll get to hear what many legislators think about the idea.

In my mind, the term "assimilation" applies to each of the items you listed. I'm not so much concerned about the alien's ability to assimilate into the language and culture of the US. I'm more concerned about the ability of the US to assimilate them into society, which includes the job market and social services. About 20% of the US population growth every year is from arriving immigrants, based on current birth rate of a little over 4M per year, and immigration at about 1M per year. Remove the numerical limits and you will see that grow to 40% or 50%. The economy can't absorb that many new workers every year, especially now.

Here's an analogy...

In California, they install metering lights on busy ramps leading onto busy freeways. These lights are turned on during rush hour. One light per lane turns green about every five seconds, and only one car is permitted to pass each time the light turns green. This controls the volume of traffic from the ramp onto the freeway, and makes it easier for the cars to merge into freeway traffic without causing the freeway traffic to slow down. Before the lights were installed there were always intersections where the freeway traffic was backed up because of the volume of cars merging from the ramp. Cars on the ramp still have to wait in line for their turn at the light, but with only five seconds between cars the wait is usually not more than a couple of minutes, and it greatly improves the flow of traffic on the freeways.

By that definition (treating everyone equally), the limits are indeed not discriminatory.

What seems objectionable to me is this: you take Earth, draw lines on it and circumscribe the people living within those lines as belonging to one or the other country/nation. (Disclaimer: I realize this is not how the historical process actually works, here, however, I take a position of a neutral observer).

Then you have situations like this: take two border cities, say Dunga Bunga in Pakistan and Padampur in India. It's an 8 hour drive, people living in one could easily have friends and relatives in the other. Yet when two individuals with the same priority date stand in line for their visa, the one from Padampur would get it later, at some stages in Visa Bulletin history - significantly later, than the one in Dunga Bunga. Based on nothing more than the collective decision of people living within the respective circumscribed territories to apply for visa in the same category.

In short, why should someone from Padampur be held accountable / suffer because of someone from Mumbai just because both of them have 'India' attached to them? Is he his brother's / "countryman's" keeper?

The 7% cap is appealing in that it creates a pretty diverse immigrant body, but because of the misgivings I describe above, I think I would have no problem with a common line for everyone, irrespective of their country of origin.

A common line for everyone would increase the wait for everyone except for the people from the oversubscribed countries. It would also mean most of the immigrants entering the US every year would be from the heavily subscribed countries. As you pointed out, it wouldn't be a very diverse body of immigrants.

Congress had to draw the lines somewhere, and they chose to draw them by country. I suppose they could have drawn their own geographical lines according to population, but that would have to be recalculated every year, and you'd still have people complaining that their city was arbitrarily included in the wrong geographical zone. You'd also have people from smaller countries complaining that most of the immigrants were coming from the most populous countries because the US was effectively treating them like multiple countries. The law as it's written is simple - per country - and it doesn't have to be modified or recomputed whenever the population of the world changes, or even when new countries are created.

As it turns out, the current system works pretty well. Out of nearly 200 different countries in the world, less than half a dozen are oversubscribed at any given time.

[tanny1 0]

we're only talking about spouse and children of LPR

not freaking uncle jackson whatever you named it.

people keep talking about removing the F2A numerical visa number limit would "open flood gate" and it'll make the unemployment rate go up.

isn't it the opposite because more money would be spent HERE in the U.S.

so more consumer spending/housing purchases are bad for the economy.

makes no sense

my point exactly... that jenni guy is an ####. Greenholders are just asking for their kids and spouses that's it. everyone parent want a better life for their children. Even the law chances and let minor children come along with thier parent in time it takes USC, i'm sure in will make all the difference for these families

[tanny1 0]

Hey i'm in the same shoes. Mother became lpr last december 2010 {10 months ago} my brother who was/is a minor could not come...which is fibe. The provisions of the law says he couldn't come and that we understood. His case is still pending and my/his mother is living overseas on a temp. Bases while the case is pending. Perhaps your mother could do that and travel frequently. .. Just a thought of how we are addressing the issue.

We as also have a pending case submitted for my mom by her mom (F3) that we could have used to allow every one to complete the process together but having a choice.. We choose not to but refile for the IR5 visas.

HEY THANKS FOR RESPONDING, BUT I HAVE READ SOMEWHERE THAT A GREEN CARDHOLDERS CANNOT BEEN OUT THE COUNTY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME BECAUSE IT CAN PREVENT THEM FROM PETITIONING FOR THEIR CHILDREN OR SPOUSE. I THINK I READ IT IN LPR HANDBOOK. CHECK IT OUT AND LET ME KNOW.

[jhp 10]

come on friends.....just sign the petition for us....it might benefit other categories too...bcaz if relative of permanent resident will be given status of immidiate relatives ,f2a is out of visa categories in 226000 visas ....and 88000 of f2a visas will be awarded to other categories....so all other categories may benefit from this ......

[tanny1 0]

I see you were married in 2011, when you got married were you and your spouse not aware of this restriction?

Now after being aware of the restriction if you claim its unfair, then how is it that fair?

HARSH77... DIDN'T YOUR MOTHER EVER TELL IF U DONT ANYTHING NICE TO SAY TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, IF SHE DIDN'T TELL YOU, I'M TELLING U NOW

[Dan & Jenni 457]

HARSH77... DIDN'T YOUR MOTHER EVER TELL IF U DONT ANYTHING NICE TO SAY TO KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, IF SHE DIDN'T TELL YOU, I'M TELLING U NOW

but its ok for you to call that jenni guy a ####... surely that makes you a hypocrite??? comments like yours really wont help people change there mind because no one listens to people who shout at and abuse others just because they disagree with your opinion.... in fact all people like you do is make #### like me more stubborn and even more likely to disagree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RICARDO4EVA2 194]

HEY THANKS FOR RESPONDING, BUT I HAVE READ SOMEWHERE THAT A GREEN CARDHOLDERS CANNOT BEEN OUT THE COUNTY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME BECAUSE IT CAN PREVENT THEM FROM PETITIONING FOR THEIR CHILDREN OR SPOUSE. I THINK I READ IT IN LPR HANDBOOK. CHECK IT OUT AND LET ME KNOW.

Greencard holders are responsible for staying in compliance yes. Extensive stay outside the use can made possible when the person files the proper forms. The GC holder can still petition a child or spouse while overseas.... The petitioner must show proof of US Domicile. People do it with care ... with out the proper paperwork being filed that would allow the GC holder to be absent for up to 2 years. The previous version of the form I-130 mention the petitioner's domicile but thee form today doesnt

[PD is Current. 50]

come on friends.....just sign the petition for us

no need to ask these people. we're braking at the wrong tree.

Edited October 13, 2011 by PD is Current.

[jhp 10]

no need to ask these people. we're braking at the wrong tree.

you may be right...certainly

[Boiler 43,659]

If you get married before you get your Green Card you can get your spouse and children in at the same time.

So the only people we are concerned with are those who have moved to the US, then decided to marry someone, usually someone from their own country.

It is no secret that there is a wait to come to the US, but no wait presumably to go home.

I would have thought that before marrying one question that might arise is where are we going to live. No different that if you have 2 USC's, one lives on the east coast one on the west. If the east one can not move then the west one should?

PS USA is not a Democracy.