MDUdall: Interesting News Item
Sep 29th 2005, 5:29 pm
#16
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 88
Re: MDUdall: Interesting News Item
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) that might be of interest.
Yesterday the House passed the DOJ Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Lawmakers approved two immigration related amendments during floor consideration of the bill.
The first amendment would prohibit any person convicted of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, or dating violence from sponsoring a visa applicant in the future.
As most of you know, a petitioner’s name is run through an IBIS check when a petition is submitted. When IBIS first came out, I initially wondered why they would run the names of U.S. citizen petitioners as I couldn’t imagine any crime a petitioner might have committed that would make them ineligible to petition for someone; but then I realized that some U.S. citizens were not born in the U.S. and instead immigrated and then naturalized. If they have a criminal record, the CIS might very well examine their old application for naturalization to see if this was divulged on that form.
The first amendment (issue mentioned above) also reminds me of a case I read about last year, where a matchmaker was successfully sued for not doing a background check on the U.S. citizen client, which the matchmaker lined up with a foreign client. While the government might be immune from this type of action, singling out these types of prior bad acts does signify (at least to me it does) an effort by the House to at least try to protect an immigrant by weeding out some of the bad apples from the eligibility pool.
What say you? Do you think this is a good idea?
Yesterday the House passed the DOJ Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Lawmakers approved two immigration related amendments during floor consideration of the bill.
The first amendment would prohibit any person convicted of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, or dating violence from sponsoring a visa applicant in the future.
As most of you know, a petitioner’s name is run through an IBIS check when a petition is submitted. When IBIS first came out, I initially wondered why they would run the names of U.S. citizen petitioners as I couldn’t imagine any crime a petitioner might have committed that would make them ineligible to petition for someone; but then I realized that some U.S. citizens were not born in the U.S. and instead immigrated and then naturalized. If they have a criminal record, the CIS might very well examine their old application for naturalization to see if this was divulged on that form.
The first amendment (issue mentioned above) also reminds me of a case I read about last year, where a matchmaker was successfully sued for not doing a background check on the U.S. citizen client, which the matchmaker lined up with a foreign client. While the government might be immune from this type of action, singling out these types of prior bad acts does signify (at least to me it does) an effort by the House to at least try to protect an immigrant by weeding out some of the bad apples from the eligibility pool.
What say you? Do you think this is a good idea?
The idea is a good one, but the only thing that makes me cringe is that there is again a separation between a naturalized citizen and a born citizen. It just feels that in the spirit of total integration, once you are a naturalized citizen, you ought to be awarded the same benefits of a born citizen (which seems to be the case in most scenarios except the presidency). I am going through the naturalization process now (Nov 3 interview). I have been in the U.S since I was 15 years old on a variety of visas leading to PR. I naturally feel a great deal of love, respect and loyalty for the United States which is my home and a wonderful one at that. It seems that the process to get to naturalization is tough enough for so many people that once you actually are naturalized, I feel that you should be treated no differently than a born citizen.
Other than the fact that this sounds like it discriminates a natural born citizen from a naturalized citizen, I like it. I would vote to have the same check run for a born citizen that a naturalized citizen goes through since the end result is to try to pevent scary people from moving here.
Just my 2 cents
-- Gaude
Sep 29th 2005, 5:36 pm
#17
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: MDUdall: Interesting News Item
Originally Posted by Matthew Udall
I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) that might be of interest.
Yesterday the House passed the DOJ Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Lawmakers approved two immigration related amendments during floor consideration of the bill.
The first amendment would prohibit any person convicted of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, or dating violence from sponsoring a visa applicant in the future.
As most of you know, a petitioner’s name is run through an IBIS check when a petition is submitted. When IBIS first came out, I initially wondered why they would run the names of U.S. citizen petitioners as I couldn’t imagine any crime a petitioner might have committed that would make them ineligible to petition for someone; but then I realized that some U.S. citizens were not born in the U.S. and instead immigrated and then naturalized. If they have a criminal record, the CIS might very well examine their old application for naturalization to see if this was divulged on that form.
The first amendment (issue mentioned above) also reminds me of a case I read about last year, where a matchmaker was successfully sued for not doing a background check on the U.S. citizen client, which the matchmaker lined up with a foreign client. While the government might be immune from this type of action, singling out these types of prior bad acts does signify (at least to me it does) an effort by the House to at least try to protect an immigrant by weeding out some of the bad apples from the eligibility pool.
What say you? Do you think this is a good idea?
Yesterday the House passed the DOJ Appropriations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Lawmakers approved two immigration related amendments during floor consideration of the bill.
The first amendment would prohibit any person convicted of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, elder abuse, or dating violence from sponsoring a visa applicant in the future.
As most of you know, a petitioner’s name is run through an IBIS check when a petition is submitted. When IBIS first came out, I initially wondered why they would run the names of U.S. citizen petitioners as I couldn’t imagine any crime a petitioner might have committed that would make them ineligible to petition for someone; but then I realized that some U.S. citizens were not born in the U.S. and instead immigrated and then naturalized. If they have a criminal record, the CIS might very well examine their old application for naturalization to see if this was divulged on that form.
The first amendment (issue mentioned above) also reminds me of a case I read about last year, where a matchmaker was successfully sued for not doing a background check on the U.S. citizen client, which the matchmaker lined up with a foreign client. While the government might be immune from this type of action, singling out these types of prior bad acts does signify (at least to me it does) an effort by the House to at least try to protect an immigrant by weeding out some of the bad apples from the eligibility pool.
What say you? Do you think this is a good idea?
First of all, the amendment is not limited to spouses. It also applies to parents, sons/daughters and brothers/sisters. Also, I've had some cases where the person has been granted 7-year cancellation -- where the DV was part of what I call a "toxic relationship" now ended, and they have since re-married and have children of that second marriage. I see no reason to punish the second spouse for the past misdeeds of the petitioner.
It is an old axiom that a job is performed best with the proper tools and the tool here is way too broad.
What I would like to see is that marriage/family categories be equalized with the business categories -- e.g. availability of premium processing. Of course that is a double edged sword -- the H-1b and L-1 classifications have to pay a "fraud fee" on top of the filing fee. In looking at the history of immigration law -- there has historically been the most fraud in the area of marriage and perhaps Nazi war criminals. Most of the Nazi war criminals are deceased, but marriage still continues. It can be debated whether the $1500 or the lower $750 fraud fee would be applicable.
Sep 29th 2005, 5:47 pm
#18
MODERATOR
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 58,679
Re: MDUdall: Interesting News Item
Originally Posted by gaude
The idea is a good one, but the only thing that makes me cringe is that there is again a separation between a naturalized citizen and a born citizen. It just feels that in the spirit of total integration, once you are a naturalized citizen, you ought to be awarded the same benefits of a born citizen (which seems to be the case in most scenarios except the presidency). I am going through the naturalization process now (Nov 3 interview). I have been in the U.S since I was 15 years old on a variety of visas leading to PR. I naturally feel a great deal of love, respect and loyalty for the United States which is my home and a wonderful one at that. It seems that the process to get to naturalization is tough enough for so many people that once you actually are naturalized, I feel that you should be treated no differently than a born citizen.
Other than the fact that this sounds like it discriminates a natural born citizen from a naturalized citizen, I like it. I would vote to have the same check run for a born citizen that a naturalized citizen goes through since the end result is to try to pevent scary people from moving here.
Just my 2 cents
-- Gaude
Other than the fact that this sounds like it discriminates a natural born citizen from a naturalized citizen, I like it. I would vote to have the same check run for a born citizen that a naturalized citizen goes through since the end result is to try to pevent scary people from moving here.
Just my 2 cents
-- Gaude
At least, that's the way I interpreted it.
Rene
Sep 29th 2005, 5:48 pm
#19
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: MDUdall: Interesting News Item
Originally Posted by gaude
I would vote to have the same check run for a born citizen that a naturalized citizen goes through since the end result is to try to pevent scary people from moving here.
Just my 2 cents
-- Gaude
Just my 2 cents
-- Gaude
Sep 30th 2005, 2:40 pm
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: MDUdall: Interesting News Item
Originally Posted by Folinskyinla
What I would like to see is that marriage/family categories be equalized with the business categories -- e.g. availability of premium processing. Of course that is a double edged sword -- the H-1b and L-1 classifications have to pay a "fraud fee" on top of the filing fee. In looking at the history of immigration law -- there has historically been the most fraud in the area of marriage and perhaps Nazi war criminals. Most of the Nazi war criminals are deceased, but marriage still continues. It can be debated whether the $1500 or the lower $750 fraud fee would be applicable.
If there is to be a 'fraud' fee (what are they supposed to spend the fee on) perhaps it should be be charged on the basis of exposure, I believe that you have mentioned 4 regional categories in the past.
