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?

scrubbedexpat099

Is this just Marriage sponsorship ar all sponsorship?.

Logic would suggest that if you can not bring a spouse into the country to live with you if you have been convicted of dating abuse you also should not be allowed to live with a 'local' spouse?

Logic would also suggest that those on the receiving end of the sponsorship who have commited such offences should also be banned.

Are there waivers available?

arijit

I think this is a great idea.

jeffreyhy

Matt,

Yes, I think it's an excellent idea. Not only because it would protect aliens from abusers, but also because abuse is almost a fee ticket to LPR status for an alien spouse who has made it to the USA. Better to 'protect' the alien while they're still in their own country and leave them there rather than have them here.

Regards, JEff

Matthew Udall

AILA is against this, and says the amendment is too far-reaching. Don't know about waivers. But I was curious as to what some of you think about it.

Also note that they use the word "sponsoring" [a visa applicant in the future]. I don't know if by the choice of that word, they are limiting one's ability to submit an affidavit of support (I usually think of that when I think of "sponsorship") or limiting one's ability to be a petitioner.

Noorah101

I was wondering the same thing. My first thought was...OK, the USC can get a joint sponsor who does not have that background. But my second thought was, they just mean a petitioner, since that would make more sense.

What about an alien who has an abuse charge in the past? Would they still be able to come over? Sometimes it's the alien that is the abuser.

Rene

jeffreyhy

Matt,

Thanks for pointing out the significance of the words, sponsor v petitioner.

I would agree with AILA, that the proposal goes too far, if sponsorship in terms of an affidavit of support is what is meant. I still think that dis-allowing convicted abusers from petitioning for people who would live in the abuser's household is a very good idea.

Regards, JEff

bionomique

Really? A US citizen, who is a criminal, but is native born, is immune?

I say it is a good idea. Is this some sort of initiative to reduce the number of VAWA petitions that are submitted and approved? Otherwise, why limit it to this criterion? I can think of a number of criminal acts not mentioned that could also demonstrate proclivity towards abuse of the system and/or beneficiary.

Matthew Udall

My assumption was that they meant petitioner (but I could be wrong). It seems to me that this is motivated by an interest in protecting an unsuspecting alien from a potentially dangerous petitioner (I would think most petitioners and beneficiaries will live in close proximity to each other). Not necessarily so (living in close proximity) for someone who submits an affidavit of support in a case (especially in the co-sponsor situation).

Matthew Udall

I've never been associated with a case where a native born U.S. citizen has effectively renounced his or her U.S. citizenship. A naturalized U.S. citizen, under appropriate circumstances, can have their citizenship stripped away.

mdyoung

I guess that puts these two woman out of the international dating scene

http://www.lex18.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable

Two Nursing Assistants Indicted For Abusing Patients At Rehab Center

Frankfort (AP) -- Attorney General Greg Stumbo announced Tuesday the indictment of two nursing assistants for multiple counts of abuse after it was discovered that they allegedly gave elderly and medically fragile patients laxatives as a prank in order to harass staff that worked shifts after them.

The incidents allegedly occurred at the Irvine Health and Rehabilitation Center in Irvine, Kentucky. Lisa Kilburn, 27, and Kim Congleton, 30, both certified nursing assistants, were employed at the nursing home, providing care for residents, when the abuse occurred. Their employment has since been terminated.

The investigation, conducted by Stumbo's Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Control Division, disclosed that on October 18, 2004, Kilburn and Congleton, while working as caretakers at the facility, abused elderly and medically fragile residents by administering laxative suppositories that were not medically necessary and had not been ordered as part of the residents' treatment. The acts were apparently done to harass next shift nursing assistants.

bionomique

Right, but I wasn't querying stripping citizenship. If the IBIS were to check to see if a US citizen were eligible to petition, are there currently (prior to this new development) any crimes which preclude petitioning, from which a native born US citizen would be immune?

James Box

What was the second amendment?

Thanks
James

Noorah101

Oh My God! That just makes me want to cry.

Steffi

What exactly is a "dating violence"?

On one hand it seems like a good idea...but then there's also the cases where a person was being stupid but has since grown up and would no longer do any such things. So I'm a bit torn on the issue. Obviously it would be great to stop any extreme cases, but then it would be sad to stop other cases when the person would no longer do such things. I guess it goes along the lines of ever having been in jail...can you ever trust that person again or not? One one hand the saying goes "people don't change," but what about cases where the person does change? Like I said, I'm torn on the issue and I guess there is no way to ever know if someone would do the same thing again or not, so even further "interrogation" could be useless, because how could you ever be 100% sure if it would happen again or not. Hence people asking about "waivers?"