Another Adam Walsh Act Issue on the Horizon

[Caladan 19]

Lawmakers vote for the bills, the President signs them, and the implementation is carried out by other people. Procedure's not law.

At least information on child support will be easy to come by, but it will probably still take months to get the yes or no question added on the newer form.

[prpplague 0]

Lawmakers vote for the bills, the President signs them, and the implementation is carried out by other people. Procedure's not law.

At least information on child support will be easy to come by, but it will probably still take months to get the yes or no question added on the newer form.

i agree with your assertion, however, there is no reason wording such as:

"the overseeing authority shall implement procedures to comply with this act 30 days prior to its effective date."

"background checks to comply with this act will be done in a timely manner and completed withing 30 days of application"

"the overseeing authority will set forth procedures to correct informational mistakes in a timely manner within 90 days of adequate evidence of error"

this type of wording appears in my bills, so its not unusual. these are the types of restrictions that many state governments are familiar with since they are often used with unfunded mandates.

i.e. similiar wording can be found in the bill that mandates states have a legal drinking age of 21 or else no funding for the states portion of interstate highways.

[William33 110]

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.

Um, this is an absolutely ridiculous bill, as the states have not yet collectively merged their information.

Thus, a conflicted/contested support issue could ** a petitioner until certain states get with the program.

No different than sex offenders and pedophiles? Horsesh!t.

The aforementioned are criminals that should die.

Generally, those with conflicted child support issues are trying to get it done. I have many friends in the child support "black hole". Trying to get it done, with no appreciable assistance from their ex.

Walsh should piss off from issues unrelated to his own case.

Edited February 20, 2007 by William33

[prpplague 0]

Walsh should piss off from issues unrelated to his own case.

walsh did not have anything to do with this bill. i just stated the legal requirements were similiar to those of the Adam Walsh Act. basically requiring USCIS to get another background check without any restrictions or guidance.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

The bill is dumb.

Edited February 20, 2007 by jane2005

[Mephys 2]

OK im tired and my english is bad tonight...I need a clarification

Does that law means its gonna affect any petition and/or adjustement of status regarding this petition ?

And is it about people that are NOT paying the child support they are supposed to ?

Im just freaking out here cause yeah my fiance has child support but he is paying everything every month, and has never been in default.

Just reading fast it sounded to me that its gonna affect anyone paying child support..

[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.

No different than sex offenders and pedophiles? Horsesh!t.

The aforementioned are criminals that should die.

You need to re-read the context and the reason I made that statement. It had nothing to do with the merits or appropriateness of the potential legislation. You missed the point completely.

[rebeccajo 14]

Lawmakers vote for the bills, the President signs them, and the implementation is carried out by other people. Procedure's not law.

At least information on child support will be easy to come by, but it will probably still take months to get the yes or no question added on the newer form.

i agree with your assertion, however, there is no reason wording such as:

"the overseeing authority shall implement procedures to comply with this act 30 days prior to its effective date."

"background checks to comply with this act will be done in a timely manner and completed withing 30 days of application"

"the overseeing authority will set forth procedures to correct informational mistakes in a timely manner within 90 days of adequate evidence of error"

this type of wording appears in my bills, so its not unusual. these are the types of restrictions that many state governments are familiar with since they are often used with unfunded mandates.

i.e. similiar wording can be found in the bill that mandates states have a legal drinking age of 21 or else no funding for the states portion of interstate highways.

Not in immigration bills. Nor anywhere at all in immigration law other than the caveat for naturalization that security checks are to be completed within 120 days before an inquiry can begin.

[Heracles 417]

OK im tired and my english is bad tonight...I need a clarification

Does that law means its gonna affect any petition and/or adjustement of status regarding this petition ?

And is it about people that are NOT paying the child support they are supposed to ?

Im just freaking out here cause yeah my fiance has child support but he is paying everything every month, and has never been in default.

Just reading fast it sounded to me that its gonna affect anyone paying child support..

He will be in the clear. I believe it's more about partners who are owe child support payments..

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I believe it's more about partners who are owe child support payments...

It sure seems to be about the deadbeats. They ought to be restricted from sponsoring aliens into the country.

[rebeccajo 14]

OK im tired and my english is bad tonight...I need a clarification

Does that law means its gonna affect any petition and/or adjustement of status regarding this petition ?

And is it about people that are NOT paying the child support they are supposed to ?

Im just freaking out here cause yeah my fiance has child support but he is paying everything every month, and has never been in default.

Just reading fast it sounded to me that its gonna affect anyone paying child support..

He will be in the clear. I believe it's more about partners who are owe child support payments..

It would be my supposition that those paying support will need to somehow send verification that the support is current.

[rebeccajo 14]

"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."

Looks to me like this also affects AOS, and perhaps pending petitions.

Edited February 20, 2007 by rebeccajo

[almaty 19]

i agree..i think they are covering all areas in this regard...i