alex_lg

Hi All,

H.R.4437 just got passed in the House. The final outcome is still fluid since it needs to pass the Senate and signed by the president to become law. But again, as a USC I am just here for a good chat.

H.R.4437 makes it a felony to overstay a visa. Rumors on the street saying it will be reduced to a misdemeanor in the Senate bill. But what difference does it make for those who want to do an AOS? Does a misdemeanor still allow one to adjust in the U.S. while a felony doesn’t?

I myself sent my wife overseas for a year and half back when I was a LPR. Her marriage to me made it very difficult to renew or change her non-immigrant visa on the basis of dual intent. She stayed overseas until I became a USC to bring her back on a K3 and was finally granted a Green Card after an AOS. Although we played by the rules, I’ve never felt one ounce of pride. Rosa Park wouldn’t have made history if she just obeyed the dumb law of her day. In fact, I feel I’ve betrayed my family for succumbing to a bunch of cowardly politicians who refuse to do anything for LPR because it doesn’t gain them one vote. (I discount the one-shot V category.)

Since up till now a USC’s spouse is eligible to do an AOS even if they’ve overstayed, I just know many LPR’s spouses who are not able to renew their visa would overstay to wait for their spouse to become a USC. My understanding is H.R. 4437 as is, and if the Senate concur, will make these overstaying LPR’s spouses unable to adjust even if their spouse become a USC later. Their only option will be to leave the country to apply for an immigrant visa, but then the 3 and 10 year entitlement bar will kick in. A few lucky ones may get a hardship waiver to come back earlier but the rest will be hosed.

Anyone up for a good chat?

CaliforniaBride

But Rosa Parks was a USC. Don't think it would have been quite as effective is she was a LPR.

Not that I think you have even a shadow of a decent analogy there.

nettlebed

Well, perhaps that will prevent *some* people from wilfully breaking the law and assuming that there are no consequences? Maybe later...

CaliforniaBride

When you've had a few glasses of xmas spirit.

alex_lg

Thank you for your comment. Rosa was probably a little too far for an analogy.

Immigration in general concerning only the aliens, USC invovled with aliens, USC who was formerly an alien and attorney making money on these 3 groups. So if we count on a USC outside of these 4 categories to do anything about it, nothing probably would happen. Actually most politicians and their constituents don't fall in these categories and naturally we have a very broken system. It's funny that I obeyed the law and yet feel bad for lack of the courage to protest against it. The overstaying LPR spouses should not be cited a felon, as 4437 trying to enforce, as if they were rapists or murderers. It's natural that people want to keep their "immediate" family together. What's broken is the congress not willing to fix it. By succumbing to this stupid law as I did, I feel I've re-assued the irresponsible congress to continue to operate that way. Certainly I am not advocating the right way to fix it is to promote overstaying for these LPR spouses either. But before pursuing people for breaking the law, this great democracy of ours should give people a chance to obey the law and still be able to live together as husband and wife. As it is today, the LPR spouses have not been given a fair chance.

Rete

I know that there are two sides to every coin and that families should be together. However, since I first became involved with immigration when I was going to marry my Canadian fiancee (8 years ago), I have always wondered why LPR's take the stand that you have. They knew what the ruling was at the time of their marriage. They knew what the numbers were in the timelines for getting their spouses and children to the US legally and yet, they married anyway.

Yes an LPR has the right to marry and have his/her family with him/her. However, they could do this by returning to their own country. Or emigrating to a country that will allow them both entry at the same time, i.e. Canada.

This laws/rules/regulations were not something that just came about. They have been in existence for many years. Why didn't the immigrating spouse chose to stay with his family instead of separating from them. Realistically the choice to be apart was the immigrants.

Rete

nettlebed

My wife has recently been researching her family's immigration history (her grandfather and some relatives came from Croatia the first couple of decades of the last century), and it makes me realise how fortunate immigrants in the present day are, on the whole. Back them, many families were apart for several years as a matter of course, with NO telephone and NO email, and often the family remaining behind in the home country were in real poverty.

Now, people have it relatively easy, especially if they are eligible and they follow the rules. If neither of those situations obtains, why do people think that they have an equivalent right to immigrate with as much ease as those people who DO meet the criteria.

Unfortunately, there is NO automatic right to immigrate to the US, it is a real privilege available only to a few people. Unfair? maybe (I happen not to think so, as I think that whining about unfairness is a sign of immaturity). Unreasonable? Again, no. The country has a right, nay a duty, to favour its citizens and those associated with them, but it also has the right to try to ensure that people follow the rules.

To everybody else, suck it up and stop being a baby...

Folinskyinla

Hi Rete:

I can't say that I've read HR 4437 all that carefully. But on first glance, I didn't see any additional items making unlawful presence a bar to adjustment or IV other than what is already in the Act. And those restrictions are pretty severe. It does criminalize unlawful presence which is a different matter.

However, SOMEONE writing the bill does have a sense of humor at least -- the bill begins with the following language: "It is the sense of Congress that the immigration and naturalization policy shall be designed to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the United States of America."

Matthew Udall

I haven’t read it either, but I’ve read some of the AILA review points. One of the items that caught my eye was that apparently there are penalties for people who assist others in violating the law (I assume AILA was talking to an audience of its members, attorneys who should be careful about what advice they render to clients or potential clients). The AILA notice only gave a summary bullet point, and did not list or analyze that part of 4437 in detail. Wonder how that will play out for UPL’ers on UPL boards who tell others to just immigrate to the U.S. with a tourist visa? Will that apply retroactively to things people might have posted (and archived) in the past? Will be interesting to see (Reply not sent to usenet).

alex_lg

Rete & Nettlebed,

Thank you for your comment. I knew what I was getting into when I got married. I obeyed the law and sent my wife away for 1.5 years. There are quite a few postings on this forum by me from a while back when I was working on K3 to bring my wife back after I became a USC.

However, I think no less of those who decided to overstay in a LPR spouse case.

The sever reality on LPR spouse today is NOT by design. Years ago when the policy was adopted to make it very difficult for a USC and LPR spouse to obtain a visitor visa, it was a very short wait for them to get a Green Card. Over the years the backlog becomes longer and longer and inadverntly punishes the LPR spouses that were never intended as the go-after target.

In the old days when immigrants left their family behind to come here to create a better life, it wasn't the immigration law preventing them from bringing family. It was purely economic. This country didn't have a immigration law until the 20's if I remember it correctly.

I agree that every country has the right to pick their immigrants and it's common to favor a citizen over a LPR. I am also old enough to know life is never fair (The 25 year old young man from my church is planning to retire next year from Google!). Since I am here for a chat, and for the sake of argument, I must point out that we don't need a congress if we always approach an issue, immigration or not, as it's that way before you get into it and so don't complain! We need a congress to make new laws because some old laws never make sense on day 1 and some are good initially but become outdated over time. If everyone is silent and accepts the law as is, then how is a democracy going to function and a society going to improve if everyone accepts the status quo or pretends a current regulation is working when it doesn't? Complaining or crying is not bad. It's the fuel that drives democracy!

Folinskyinla

Matt:

As I noted, I happen to agree with Section 3 of HR 4437. One thing I did note was that AGAIN, there is also a directive to CIS & DOS to complete adjudications within 6 months.

The weird thing about this, if the onerous parts become law, do you think they are going to expend taxpayer dollars to ENFORCE this -- to pay the AUSA's and their clerical staff, the courts and their staff, AND probably PD's and appointed private counsel AND increase the budget of BOP. I wonder. And then that wonderful budgetary word of "reprogramming" in regards to allocated funds will come up.

alex_lg

Now I have done the easy part of the democratic process, i.e. complain, whine, cry or whatever you call it, here is the more difficult and not surprisingly controversial part. How should it be fixed?

My personal view on resolving the LPR spouse issue depends on how HR4437 evolves. If the eventuality turns out to be once a person overstays, it's not possible to do an AOS in the U.S. and once the person leaves after overstay, then the entitlement bar kicks in, my personal 2 cents is to simply strip LPR the right to sponsor their family! This way the LPR spouses can get a fair chance to apply for a visitor visa like everyone else, and we don't need to add more exceptions to the no dual intent policy. The eligibility for a LPR to sponsor as is today is a useless teaser anyway that brings about more harm than good. Most LPR I know become a citizen long before the process of using one Green Card to sponsor another sees the end of the tunnel.

You may wonder how to ensure these LPR spouses will leave on time once they are admitted as a visitor? Well, if HR4437 evovles into the scenario I mentioned above, anyone cares to immigrate would not dare to overstay.

How about some LPRs never have the desire to become USCs and want to live in the U.S. for life as a LPR? Personally I have no sympathy for those who just want to enjoy the privileges close to what a USC enjoys but don't have to perform civic duties like jury duties or defend the country if draft becomes necessary.

scrubbedexpat099

There are a whole host of reasons to become a USC, a number of them have been mentioned in this and other recent postings, including some like Estate tax which was news to me.

Jury duty, well no big deal, and if you are at risk of the draft at least yopu have a get out which is not available to USC's with np other nationality.

IF the change of law makes people more concious of US Immigration law, well that can be no bad thing.

CaliforniaBride

What's the get out? I didn't think you could use another nationality to avoid anything once you were a USC.

ian-mstm

True... to a point. I believe what you can not do, is claim that because you are a citizen of another country that you are not bound by US laws. If, however, you were to um... suddenly move to your home country, you would be safe unless that country had an extradition treaty with the US and the US was really wanting to pursue you! Of course, once you left the US, you could find yourself under arrest if and when you ever did return.

Ian