Another Adam Walsh Act Issue on the Horizon

[prpplague 0]

just wanted to give everyone the heads up on a bill thats is gonna be pushed thur in this session of congress:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-78

"American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act of 2006 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) from approving a family-based immigration petition or fiance/fiancee nonimmigrant petition by a petitioner certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as owing child support arrearages.

Authorizes the Secretary to revoke a previously-approved petition (if a visa has not been issued or a status adjustment has not been effected) if such petition would not have been approved had the provisions of this Act been in effect."

i called Rep Bartlett's office ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400017 ) and spoke with a staff member on this. they said that had no clue how USCIS would implement the procedures for doing this, but that it wasn't really there problem, that USCIS was responsible for following the law.

does anyone else feel like we have politicians who have no idea about the paperwork nightmare they create?

[Heracles 417]

I don't understand what is wrong with that bill. It actually makes sense.

If someone does not have the decency or maturity to pay for their present children, how they hell are they going to support an immigrant who is not eligible for any federal aid until they become a citizen..

[prpplague 0]

I don't understand what is wrong with that bill. It actually makes sense.

If someone does not have the decency or maturity to pay for their present children, how they hell are they going to support an immigrant who is not eligible for any federal aid until they become a citizen..

nothing in theory, the problem is that the bill doesn't spell out how USCIS is suppose to implment the procedure. just like the Adam Walsh Act, its going add yet another background check that has to be done by a seperate agency. the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to do the certification, which means even if the background check related to the Adam Walsh Act is organized so that DCF can continue, when this becomes law, again DCF will be up in the air. i called the DHHS and asked how long a typical check would take, their response was that because many states and counties have their own reporting standards that it could take as long as 60 days.

[Guinavere 0]

Are they checking whether or not the USC owes child support? Is that what this implies? and if that is the case, then does that mean that any USC who is marrying for the second, third, etc time will undergo a background check before getting married to make sure they don't owe child support to someone else? If they don't do this for every person getting married (whether to a USC or otherwise) then wouldn't that be considered discrimination against a person marrying a foreign spouse?

[payxibka 10,048]

Are they checking whether or not the USC owes child support? Is that what this implies? and if that is the case, then does that mean that any USC who is marrying for the second, third, etc time will undergo a background check before getting married to make sure they don't owe child support to someone else? If they don't do this for every person getting married (whether to a USC or otherwise) then wouldn't that be considered discrimination against a person marrying a foreign spouse?

No different than convicted sex offenders and pedophiles who will be denied the ability to petition as is currently the case with the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act.

[prpplague 0]

Are they checking whether or not the USC owes child support? Is that what this implies? and if that is the case, then does that mean that any USC who is marrying for the second, third, etc time will undergo a background check before getting married to make sure they don't owe child support to someone else? If they don't do this for every person getting married (whether to a USC or otherwise) then wouldn't that be considered discrimination against a person marrying a foreign spouse?

yes that is correct, it will be a check on the USC to see if they owe child support. as to the consideration of discrimination, current laws favor the attitude that bringing a foreign born spouse to the US is considered a privileage , not a right, therefor no discrimination.

[prpplague 0]

Are they checking whether or not the USC owes child support? Is that what this implies? and if that is the case, then does that mean that any USC who is marrying for the second, third, etc time will undergo a background check before getting married to make sure they don't owe child support to someone else? If they don't do this for every person getting married (whether to a USC or otherwise) then wouldn't that be considered discrimination against a person marrying a foreign spouse?

No different than convicted sex offenders and pedophiles who will be denied the ability to petition as is currently the case with the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act.

i have no problem with the intentions of this bill or the Adam Walsh Act, i agree 100% with their ideas, the problem is that adding these restrictions without properly thinking about their implementation simply makes things worse, not better. its like deciding to put a 5-ton water pump on a sinking 30 foot boat. yea the water pump will help pump out the water, but the extra wait is just gonna help make it sink faster.

[Guinavere 0]

I don't understand what is wrong with that bill. It actually makes sense.

If someone does not have the decency or maturity to pay for their present children, how they hell are they going to support an immigrant who is not eligible for any federal aid until they become a citizen..

Exactly my point! Not every USC who is rearing children without eligible child support qualifies for federal aid. The immigrant who does not qualify for federal aid is not the point that should be looked at. Every state has it's financial guidelines to qualify a person for aid. There are single parents who are working and barely keeping their heads above water who have a spouse who is supposed to be payig child support but isn't. And that single parent may be making more than the qualifying guideline and therefore does not qualify for federal aid. Shouldn't the person who is supposed to be paying child support have a background check before marrying anyone else? Foreign or USC?

[Guinavere 0]

i have no problem with the intentions of this bill or the Adam Walsh Act, i agree 100% with their ideas, the problem is that adding these restrictions without properly thinking about their implementation simply makes things worse, not better. its like deciding to put a 5-ton water pump on a sinking 30 foot boat. yea the water pump will help pump out the water, but the extra wait is just gonna help make it sink faster.

I agree...it just slows down an already slow process to do yet another background check. I personally don't have any of these things in my background, but it will still slow down my process even further because they have to do that check for everyone. I guess this is what all those fee increases are supposed to take care of! RIIIGGHHT!!!

[payxibka 10,048]

I don't understand what is wrong with that bill. It actually makes sense.

If someone does not have the decency or maturity to pay for their present children, how they hell are they going to support an immigrant who is not eligible for any federal aid until they become a citizen..

Exactly my point! Not every USC who is rearing children without eligible child support qualifies for federal aid. The immigrant who does not qualify for federal aid is not the point that should be looked at. Every state has it's financial guidelines to qualify a person for aid. There are single parents who are working and barely keeping their heads above water who have a spouse who is supposed to be payig child support but isn't. And that single parent may be making more than the qualifying guideline and therefore does not qualify for federal aid. Shouldn't the person who is supposed to be paying child support have a background check before marrying anyone else? Foreign or USC?

As was previously mentioned, discrimination occurs when it violates an inalienable right not a privilege.

[Guinavere 0]

As was previously mentioned, discrimination occurs when it violates an inalienable right not a privilege.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[prpplague 0]

I don't understand what is wrong with that bill. It actually makes sense.

If someone does not have the decency or maturity to pay for their present children, how they hell are they going to support an immigrant who is not eligible for any federal aid until they become a citizen..

Exactly my point! Not every USC who is rearing children without eligible child support qualifies for federal aid. The immigrant who does not qualify for federal aid is not the point that should be looked at. Every state has it's financial guidelines to qualify a person for aid. There are single parents who are working and barely keeping their heads above water who have a spouse who is supposed to be payig child support but isn't. And that single parent may be making more than the qualifying guideline and therefore does not qualify for federal aid. Shouldn't the person who is supposed to be paying child support have a background check before marrying anyone else? Foreign or USC?

i agree whole heartedly, problem is implementing this. if the law clearly had some limitations on the amount of time it took to do the checks, stated that USCIS had the authority to do the checks, and stated methods for correcting mistakes in the records, then it would be acceptable to me.

i never had to pay child support, but i did have to pay alimony to my ex-wife. when she died a year after our divorce, the state of texas sent me a notice saying that i no longer had to pay the alimony. two years later i get pulled over for having a headlight not working, when the police office checks, i have a warrant for my arrest, for not paying alimony. took me months to prove to the state that it was their mistake and my ex-wife was dead. now... what would have happened if that was someone with child support? does their current spouse get deported?

[Fandango 1,440]

I smell some RFEs comin!

[marcycat 0]

Are they checking whether or not the USC owes child support? Is that what this implies? and if that is the case, then does that mean that any USC who is marrying for the second, third, etc time will undergo a background check before getting married to make sure they don't owe child support to someone else? If they don't do this for every person getting married (whether to a USC or otherwise) then wouldn't that be considered discrimination against a person marrying a foreign spouse?

No different than convicted sex offenders and pedophiles who will be denied the ability to petition as is currently the case with the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act.

Yeah, it's not really "discrimination." These kinds of laws are fine with me, but not the cavalier way they're implemented. The pols and the civil servants are supposed to be thinking about the big picture, planning ahead. Granted, they often don't, but they SHOULD!! After all, they're working for us. If we wanted total chaos, we wouldn't bother with a government....

[Fandango 1,440]

I think the law is perfectly logical. After all, petitioning an immigrant spouse/fiance subjects the USC to all sorts of scrutiny. If you're barely scraping the poverty level and you are 6 mos in arrears in child support, I would assume that affects the final financial picture.

No one has the right to bring whomever here...it's a process that we must go through and prove ourselves capable of taking on such responsibility.