Trump Administration Plans to Close Key Immigration Operations Abroad(merged)

[NYCruiser 423]

1 hour ago, millefleur said:

I guess refugee applicants also won't be allowed to start applications from abroad anymore either if they close all the intentional offices.

If you look at the UNHCR Offices in Nairobi, Kenya, they processed the thousands of Somali refugees (now gay and lesbian refugees) In Kenya. The issue has been screening there. The IMO offices for Health of Migrants did not screen the refugees very effectively as well. Now this will be done here when they are admitted. 

[Mr. Data 26]

Wow，this is big news for DCF. I'm glad we already finished our DCF process in Guangzhou and have our visa in hand now. 

[TBoneTX 43,069]

7 hours ago, Moon&Stars said:

none of the news writers have actually seen the proposal

Yes -- let's wait to react until things become clear.

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

asylum cases (people who pay nothing, most of whom don't even qualify for asylum) [...] supplementing illegal aliens trying to play the system

Not all asylum cases are frivolous (e.g., many Venezuelans), and please trust that USCIS isn't granting asylum willy-nilly.  The successful applicants are those who are proving their cases with solid, thorough documentation.

[millefleur 5,037]

5 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Yes -- let's wait to react until things become clear.

This is my stance on this for now...there are a lot of USCIS FO's abroad to close if implemented...some of which probably handle hundreds of cases a month. I doubt this will be an overnight thing. Could take months or even years to implement across the board.

[visahopeful2018 2]

Will this affect AOS?

[millefleur 5,037]

15 minutes ago, visahopeful2018 said:

Will this affect AOS?

No. AOS is only done within the US, not at foreign field offices.

[jg121783 3,907]

47 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Yes -- let's wait to react until things become clear.

Not all asylum cases are frivolous (e.g., many Venezuelans), and please trust that USCIS isn't granting asylum willy-nilly.  The successful applicants are those who are proving their cases with solid, thorough documentation.

My concern isn't with the legitimate cases that are granted. It is with all the frivolous cases especially from our southern border that are tying the system up. For most of the cases from non Mexicans who enter through the the Mexican border they should be applying for asylum in Mexico (or the first country they enter) according to the law. They don't get to just choose which country they want to apply for asylum in.

[geowrian 22,335]

11 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

For most of the cases from non Mexicans who enter through the the Mexican border they should be applying for asylum in Mexico (or the first country they enter) according to the law. They don't get to just choose which country they want to apply for asylum in.

That is a requirement under law if there is a bilateral agreement with the country (like with Canada). No such agreement exists with Mexico.

Edited March 13, 2019 by geowrian

[jg121783 3,907]

13 minutes ago, geowrian said:

That is a requirement under law if there is a bilateral agreement with the country (like with Canada). No such agreement exists with Mexico.

It's international law that the first country you enter is the one you claim asylum in. In addition to that most asylum seekers crossing our southern border only have the claim that they are fleeing poor economic conditions which does not qualify them for asylum under US law. I am sure a handful of the claims at the southern border are legitimate but a vast majority are not. In most cases it is an excuse to get your foot across the border then disappear within the US before your first immigration hearing. I am not talking about asylum claims as a whole. Only the ones at the southern border.

 

All that to say my original point stands that if what the article says is true (that's a big if admittedly considering the source) resources are being diverted from those who pay for them to those who don't and a lot of times have invalid claims. If USCIS was being funded by tax dollars that would be bad enough. It makes it worse when those who pay for USCIS services are depriortized ahead of those who don't. I have talked to more than one LPR and their spouses who are upset over the fact that they do everything the legal way and wait and pay thousands of dollars in fees only to see illegal aliens have the red carpet rolled out for them. After forking over a bunch of money to USCIS I can't even get them to issue an extension letter for my step son who we filed ROC for along with my wife more than 30 days ago despite spending hours on the phone with USCIS so excuse me if I seem a little annoyed over this situation.

[TBoneTX 43,069]

Very upsetting indeed.  Sorry to hear it.  Keep the faith.

[Mr. Data 26]

58 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

It's international law that the first country you enter is the one you claim asylum in. In addition to that most asylum seekers crossing our southern border only have the claim that they are fleeing poor economic conditions which does not qualify them for asylum under US law. I am sure a handful of the claims at the southern border are legitimate but a vast majority are not. In most cases it is an excuse to get your foot across the border then disappear within the US before your first immigration hearing. I am not talking about asylum claims as a whole. Only the ones at the southern border.

 

All that to say my original point stands that if what the article says is true (that's a big if admittedly considering the source) resources are being diverted from those who pay for them to those who don't and a lot of times have invalid claims. If USCIS was being funded by tax dollars that would be bad enough. It makes it worse when those who pay for USCIS services are depriortized ahead of those who don't. I have talked to more than one LPR and their spouses who are upset over the fact that they do everything the legal way and wait and pay thousands of dollars in fees only to see illegal aliens have the red carpet rolled out for them. After forking over a bunch of money to USCIS I can't even get them to issue an extension letter for my step son who we filed ROC for along with my wife more than 30 days ago despite spending hours on the phone with USCIS so excuse me if I seem a little annoyed over this situation.

I have always wondered about this... how can people say they are fleeing violence in Central America, but then traverse the entire length of Mexico to present as asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border? Surely the claim that they fear for their lives back home doesn't hold any water at all, given that they are thousands of miles from the purported danger.

 

Its a shame that cases like this at the southern border are taking resources away from legitimate legal immigrants and refugee claimants. 

[TBoneTX 43,069]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Data said:

how can people say they are fleeing violence in Central America, but then traverse the entire length of Mexico to present as asylum seekers at the U.S. southern border?

They believe that the streets here are paved with gold, and they're being actively enabled in their travels.

[givionte 138]

People are looking for someone to blame.  Blaming asylum seekers for following the letter of the law is a bit silly.  The laws could be rewritten to prevent these supposed Mexican cases, but there is no evidence that is the main issue with the backlog.  The main issue is there needs to be more funding and focus on proper immigration, and instead of abandoning international offices, they should be encouraged and funded to free up domestic offices to handle fewer cases.  It's great that the USCIS has been profitable, but if we want to tighten legal immigration, you need to fund the service that is making it happen.

 

This is going to hurt people who are legally immigrating, and putting further burden on the US domestic offices.  Also for adoption seekers and military families this will place even more challenges in front of them.

 

I agree with others that we should wait for details, but for someone like me who is planning to DCF to bring my wife later this year, it's some very stressful news to hear.  Especially under the Trump administration ,things could change in an instant... or they might not, depends on the whims of the administration and what the courts will think.  But for those now in the process or soon to be, this puts some of us in a limbo who have been doing all the right things to do perfectly legal immigration.  We need details asap of their proposals.

[Dashinka 23,252]

2 hours ago, givionte said:

People are looking for someone to blame.  Blaming asylum seekers for following the letter of the law is a bit silly.  The laws could be rewritten to prevent these supposed Mexican cases, but there is no evidence that is the main issue with the backlog.  The main issue is there needs to be more funding and focus on proper immigration, and instead of abandoning international offices, they should be encouraged and funded to free up domestic offices to handle fewer cases.  It's great that the USCIS has been profitable, but if we want to tighten legal immigration, you need to fund the service that is making it happen.

 

This is going to hurt people who are legally immigrating, and putting further burden on the US domestic offices.  Also for adoption seekers and military families this will place even more challenges in front of them.

 

I agree with others that we should wait for details, but for someone like me who is planning to DCF to bring my wife later this year, it's some very stressful news to hear.  Especially under the Trump administration ,things could change in an instant... or they might not, depends on the whims of the administration and what the courts will think.  But for those now in the process or soon to be, this puts some of us in a limbo who have been doing all the right things to do perfectly legal immigration.  We need details asap of their proposals.

Even those planning to DCF still have legal options that may take a little longer, but are still in place.

9 hours ago, mexigrl said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trump-administration-preparing-to-close-international-immigration-offices/2019/03/12/e8db2be4-44d3-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html?utm_term=.0fe4005f9213

Does anyone know what this means to those that are trying to get visas for family members etc? It sounds like they are closing the office in Mexico City. I'm getting married to a Mexican man shortly and am really concerned about this. It's one more way this administration is trying to stop immigration. Can they really stop us like this?

 

Thanks,

Laurianne


Here is the article:

Visas are not issued by USCIS.

[The_Empyrean 733]

6 hours ago, jg121783 said:

It's international law that the first country you enter is the one you claim asylum in. In addition to that most asylum seekers crossing our southern border only have the claim that they are fleeing poor economic conditions which does not qualify them for asylum under US law. I am sure a handful of the claims at the southern border are legitimate but a vast majority are not. In most cases it is an excuse to get your foot across the border then disappear within the US before your first immigration hearing. I am not talking about asylum claims as a whole. Only the ones at the southern border.

 

All that to say my original point stands that if what the article says is true (that's a big if admittedly considering the source) resources are being diverted from those who pay for them to those who don't and a lot of times have invalid claims. If USCIS was being funded by tax dollars that would be bad enough. It makes it worse when those who pay for USCIS services are depriortized ahead of those who don't. I have talked to more than one LPR and their spouses who are upset over the fact that they do everything the legal way and wait and pay thousands of dollars in fees only to see illegal aliens have the red carpet rolled out for them. After forking over a bunch of money to USCIS I can't even get them to issue an extension letter for my step son who we filed ROC for along with my wife more than 30 days ago despite spending hours on the phone with USCIS so excuse me if I seem a little annoyed over this situation.

This is the case of letting people in and giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's upsetting that when people from deeper south america were traveling to US border, basically marching as a mob, weren't let in through Mexico, then Mexico got pissed off at them and wanted them out as they were illegal IRONIC ISN'T it?

USCIS or DHS should branch off for separate asylum, illegals processing agency, only funded by tax payers or filling fee's. Those who shout "it's isn't humane to lock up, and break families apart", i guarantee would start changing their minds, now most of them don't care, as it's US WHO FILE LEGITIMATELY pay for all that and they aren't bothered. I have two problems with illegals.

1. Showing themselves as victims at the border, and that border patrol is the one who's initiating violence. (dude, try calling police to a bank, then walk in, start robbing a bank,  and start yelling "racism, human rights" etc, getting your *** beaten is what you deserve for trying to break the law)

2. Children/Kids at the border. WHY WOULD YOU PUT YOUR FAMILY IN DANGER DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL?! Only one reason for that, so news could show how horrible border patrol is, how inhumane they are, and inconsiderate.

Now, before i get slammed with "racist, prejudice and generalizing". I do not say specific group of people does that, or that illegals are coming from one country, isn't true. Some are genuinely in bad situation and they have no choice. But as someone here mentioned, VAST MAJORITY isn't.

I am an immigrant through DV, and myself i think that DV should be completely eliminated, even before i was lucky, i was still thinking the same thing (hypocrisy, yes). 

As USCIS offices being closed outside US, good. Less spent on offices abroad, more on actually working on our cases.
You can't please everyone, as everyone's views are different, understanding and background. I'm neither supporting democrats or liberals here, i'm just stating common sense and obvious things. Some may not like it, some will support it.