Those who spend more time out of US than in

[jayjayj 571]

On 9/4/2017 at 0:15 AM, marcusa said:

i think, the USCIS just gives too much room and freedom  for people like this. so that they can take full advantage of this.

 TRUMP government should ask for more strict rule preventing people from jumping around. the residency days should be adjusted to higher number.

Let's say you are right and all the rules are too relaxed.  There are many people who believe that individuals shouldn't receive citizenship after only staying in the country for 5 years.  Maybe we should bump that up to 10 years, 20 years, or even 30 years?  That way people can show their lifelong commitment.  What do you think?

[jayjayj 571]

On 9/3/2017 at 11:32 PM, MrHanky said:

Right because we know everyone obeys the rules and regulations, that's not to say you don't and its not meant to say you're doing anything wrong, but I live in a big city and its obvious those laws aren't followed, but they're also difficult to enforce with so many people, its easy to get by them, and that's why they trying to change the laws now. There are many that unfortunately ruin it for the ones doing it the right way.

You are generalizing and making accusations against entire groups of people without any evidence to back it up.  Again, we are only talking about residency requirements for obtaining citizenship, not overall immigration reform and certainly not illegal immigration.   

 

[MrHanky 1,377]

5 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

You are generalizing and making accusations against entire groups of people without any evidence to back it up.  Again, we are only talking about residency requirements for obtaining citizenship, not overall immigration reform and certainly not illegal immigration.   

 

That's what you'd like people to believe, but its actually quite the opposite.

The information is easy to find, you just have to be willing to acknowledge it.

[jayjayj 571]

2 minutes ago, MrHanky said:

That's what you'd like people to believe, but its actually quite the opposite.

The information is easy to find, you just have to be willing to acknowledge it.

It is your responsibility to backup your own opinions.  I'm not your Google mother.

[jayjayj 571]

Below is the actual INA section referring to residency requirements, written by Congress and enacted into law by POTUS signature, which backs up my opinion.  Anyone abiding by this section of the INA is NOT breaking the law, is NOT bending the law, is NOT getting over, and is NOT taking advantage of anything.  If you really believe this portion of the INA is being massively violated without any repercussions to the individuals not abiding by it, then you really have no idea how badly our immigration system is broken and in need of an overhaul.      

 

§ Sec. 316.5 Residence in the United States.

 

(c) Disruption of continuity of residence

(1) Absence from the United States.

(i) For continuous periods of between six (6) months and one (1) year. Absences from the United States for continuous periods of between six (6) months and one (1) year during the periods for which continuous residence is required under § 316.2(a)(3) and (a)(6) shall disrupt the continuity of such residence for purposes of this part unless the applicant can establish otherwise to the satisfaction of the Service. This finding remains valid even if the applicant did not apply for or otherwise request a nonresident classification for tax purposes, did not document an abandonment of lawful permanent resident status, and is still considered a lawful permanent resident under immigration laws. The types of documentation which may establish that the applicant did not disrupt the continuity of his or her residence in the United States during an extended absence include, but are not limited to, evidence that during the absence: (Amended 9/24/93; 58 FR 49913)

(A) The applicant did not terminate his or her employment in the United States;

(B) The applicant's immediate family remained in the United States;

(C) The applicant retained full access to his or her United States abode; or

(D) The applicant did not obtain employment while abroad.

(ii) For period in excess of one (1) year. Unless an applicant applies for benefits in accordance with § 316.5(d), absences from the United States for a continuous period of one (1) year or more during the period for which continuous residence is required under § 316.2(a)(3) and (a)(5) shall disrupt the continuity of the applicant's residence. An applicant described in this paragraph who must satisfy a five-year statutory residence period may file an application for naturalization four years and one day following the date of the applicant's return to the United States to resume permanent residence. An applicant described in this paragraph who must satisfy a three-year statutory residence period may file an application for naturalization two years and one day following the da te of the applicant's return to the United States to resume permanent residence. (Amended 9/24/93; 58 FR 49913)

[MrHanky 1,377]

11 hours ago, jayjayj said:

It is your responsibility to backup your own opinions.  I'm not your Google mother.

I think you already know, more than half of the people here illegally come here legally.

[abum 324]

the way i feel about this is, if someone qualifies for something according to the law, and is a law abiding "LPR", why should he/she not go/apply for it? Regardless, he/she will have to contribute to US economy by paying/filing taxes each year ON WORLDWIDE INCOME. 

A non-issue from my perspective. 

[jayjayj 571]

41 minutes ago, MrHanky said:

I think you already know, more than half of the people here illegally come here legally.

Visa overstays?  You're making nonsensical arguments.  

 

What do visa overstays have to do with the residency requirements for law abiding LPR's to naturalize as US citizens?  

[MrHanky 1,377]

10 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Visa overstays?  You're making nonsensical arguments.  

 

What do visa overstays have to do with the residency requirements for law abiding LPR's to naturalize as US citizens?  

I make perfect sense if you read back to what others posted 2 days ago.

You're being very sensitive about this as if someone were talking about your specific situation.

I doubt anyone here really has a problem with the way you're specifically living.

[abum 324]

On 9/3/2017 at 5:28 PM, Going through said:

Those who don't reside in the United States as US Citizens still have to pay US taxes every year.  Being a "resident" tax payer doesn't make a difference in that aspect.

 

People apply for citizenship have different reasons for doing so...some want to remain and live in the US, some want to later on move back to their country part-time and have the ease of going back and forth for extended periods without any travel/work/enter restrictions.  There are some cases where divorced applicants receive their citizenship and decide to move out of the country but still have US-born children who they can visit without restriction now, and stay as long as they want in the US or visit as often as they like due to now having the right to enter the country as a USC.  Everyone becomes a citizen for different reasons.  There is no US law that states once you become a citizen you can never move out of the country or have to renounce your US citizenship if you do.

 

Those with dual citizenship automatically---does that mean, then, that they should no longer be able to reap any rights or benefits in the country they were born and raised in or lived and worked in for 30+ years?  No.  Does that mean that they are "less" of a citizen of their home country, or abusing or less committed to their home country, because they chose to live in the States at some point in their life?  Of course not.  So why would it mean that way in reverse?

 

On 9/3/2017 at 5:03 PM, jayjayj said:

You're neither respecting the system nor respecting the laws.

 

You don't get to decide that laws should be enforced differently than they are written by Congress. That's what happens in a Banana Republic. The law is the law and in this case they meet the requirements of the law.  If Congress wanted a different law then they would have written a different law.  You don't get to decide that someone following the law isn't respecting the law or our country. That's total nonsense. 

 

What if I decide YOU should only be allowed to drive 50 miles and hour in a 55 zone? Should you follow my opinion or follow the actual law that is decided by the government?  How are you going to react the people telling you that you shouldn't take full advantage of the law and drive 55 in a 55 zone?

I totally agree with the these two comments. 

[abum 324]

On 9/3/2017 at 4:09 PM, MrHanky said:

Totally agree, I see no problem with people coming to marry, but then you see people bring over their whole families and often see them talk as if it were their right, its a burden on the tax payers, not that everyone does this, but more often than not, its not a fair exchange.

 

That's why they're looking at changing the way immigration works.

but to come to the USA, the petitioners have to sign a binding contract with the US government or show proof of they immigrants will not be a public charge. So in any case, they will have to support themselves when they want to bring their whole family into the USA. And if USCIS sees the intending immigrants do not meet that requirements, no visa for them. 

Any issues there? 

[Dashinka 23,271]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:40 AM, Going through said:

I figure it's chalked up to one of two things:

 

1)  The person isn't aware of the regulations/restrictions/laws surrounding their residency (green card) status.  Or they get bad info from friends/family without doing any research themselves.  There's still the belief from a lot of people that they only have to "visit the US for 1 day out of the year" to hold onto their status.

 

2)  They don't care.  Or at least, they didn't care at the time.  Now that their life circumstances have changed, they all of a sudden are applying for naturalization and now realizing they don't meet the requirements/realizing the requirements existed.

I agree.  There are many stories of people that seem to treat a GC as sort of a multi-entry visa for various reasons.

[jayjayj 571]

12 minutes ago, MrHanky said:

I make perfect sense if you read back to what others posted 2 days ago.

You're being very sensitive about this as if someone were talking about your specific situation.

I doubt anyone here really has a problem with the way you're specifically living.

I'm trying to have a debate based on facts - you haven't posted any yet.  It would great if you would. 

 

I couldn't care less less if someone had a problem with the way I'm living.  Not that it matters, but I work for the U.S government and went through the entire immigration process with my wife and stepson.  We waited in line just like everyone else.  We paid all the fees just like everyone else.  You aren't a special flower for having done things legally.  Millions of people have done it. Going through the process legally doesn't give you the right to tell people coming after you that they should follow some, made up in your mind, subjectively stricter version of the law.  It doesn't work that way.  

[Morty 20]

13 minutes ago, abumiqdad said:

but to come to the USA, the petitioners have to sign a binding contract with the US government or show proof of they immigrants will not be a public charge. So in any case, they will have to support themselves when they want to bring their whole family into the USA. And if USCIS sees the intending immigrants do not meet that requirements, no visa for them. 

Any issues there? 

I believe what one person was saying was that this isn't what exactly always happens, and its difficult to keep track of this.

While in an ideal world everything would go that way, its not what happens in reality, and to think that everyone follows the rules is nice but coming from a big city myself with lots of foreigners, its easy to see its not the case.

They're reasoning for doing it is a whole other story, some probably truly take advantage and some are probably in desperate situations which I can have an understanding of.

[MrHanky 1,377]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

I'm trying to have a debate based on facts - you haven't posted any yet.  It would great if you would. 

 

I couldn't care less less if someone had a problem with the way I'm living.  Not that it matters, but I work for the U.S government and went through the entire immigration process with my wife and stepson.  We waited in line just like everyone else.  We paid all the fees just like everyone else.  You aren't a special flower for having done things legally.  Millions of people have done it. Going through the process legally doesn't give you the right to tell people coming after you that they should follow some, made up in your mind, subjectively stricter version of the law.  It doesn't work that way.  

I haven't posted facts? Or you just don't want to acknowledge them? I think its more the later.

 

What kind of flower am I? hahaha 

 

What stricter made-up laws have I posted?

Maybe you should see who posted what, and if you take the time to read instead of letting your anger take over you'd see its a matter of opinions.