Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You should do your own research you know -- but here it is --- notice -- when the sponsored immigrant goes to get welfare handouts, the sponsor's income is only added to his immigrant's -- the sponsor might be on welfare himself and the immigrant's income $0 which will get the immigrant on welfare handouts.
There is no requirement that the sponsor actually provide his immigrants with a health insurance plan or that the sponsor be held responsible for all medical bills for their immigrants. This is why I believe legally sponsored through family immigrants be limited to spouse and minor children but if and only if the sponsor will pay for all their costs and provide them a good health insurance plan.
When an agency is determining a lawful permanent resident’s financial eligibility for TANF, food stamps, SSI, nonemergency Medicaid, or CHIP,[33] in some cases the law requires the agency to deem the income of the immigrant’s sponsor or the sponsor’s spouse as available to the immigrant. The sponsor’s income and resources are added to the immigrant’s, which often disqualifies the immigrant as over-income for the program. The 1996 laws imposed deeming rules until the immigrant becomes a citizen or secures credit for 40 quarters (approximately 10 years) of work history in the U.S.[34]
Domestic violence survivors and immigrants who would go hungry or homeless without assistance (“indigent” immigrants) are exempt from sponsor deeming for at least 12 months.[35] Some programs apply additional exemptions from the sponsor deeming rules.[36}
I was able to research "deeming" when you brought it up on the forum before, but you still aren't accenting the critical portion:
Quote:
The 1996 laws [under President Clinton] imposed deeming rules until the immigrant becomes a citizen or secures credit for 40 quarters (approximately 10 years) of work history in the U.S.
When are you going to source your other claims, in the proper Legal Immigration section?...
The comment I was responding to set a scenario of former illegal aliens gaining legal residency (or incrementally naturalizing to U.S. citizenship) sponsoring their immediate relative to legally immigrate. Why is there a problem with legal "chain migration"? It wouldn't be illegal immigration any more.
Sponsorship rules don't change (nor quotas or qualifications), an "Immediate Relative" is still the same familial relationships. Now you are saying that someone that has not broken any U.S. immigration law before should not be allowed to legally immigrate. Does the concept of having an illegal alien family member stain all of the other relatives somehow?
This has come up on this forum before, "malamute" stated that 1st generation immigrants should not (despite the lawfully nature of their presence) be able to sponsor anyone else for immigration. I contrasted that with a scenario of my youngest stepdaughter immigrating as a child. If she finds an immigrant fiance/spouse at a later point in life (that may not even be from her home country or region), she is not allowed to sponsor him?
These constant insinuations that the origins and ethnicity of immigrants don't make them the same as other legal residents and U.S. citizens need to stop. The objections to illegal immigration always derail over to specifically constraining legal immigration based on ethnicity, origins, and/or "skills". If you want to change legal immigration to your ideal, post in the legal immigration forum.
In my opinion, illegal aliens should be disqualified from the family sponsorship program. It's bad enough they are even being legalized after willfully violating our laws, including committing ID theft, fraud, and tax evasion. Granting them the right to sponsor family is just another slap in the face for legal immigrants, as well as a travesty of justice. Why bother having immigration laws if every time we have a large number of illegals the government will offer amnesty? So, yes, the fact that their sponsors gained legalization as a reward for unlawful behavior changes everything.
Why shouldn't education and skills be a factor in our immigration process? We already have millions of uneducated, unskilled and government-dependent citizens living in this country. We damn sure don't need to import more. We are already on the decline in academics compared to other countries. Why on earth would we invite immigrants who will be of no benefit to this country whatsoever to help us plunge further into the abyss?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum
So your solution is to constrain the abilities of U.S. citizens compared to other U.S. citizens? You've just given me an idea for a new poll thread. Why should that act of once being an illegal alien disallow their otherwise qualified relative from immigrating, especially after that sponsor has naturalized to U.S. citizenship?
What criteria is currently in place to check the "skills" and education of family-sponsored legal immigrants? Again, your insinuations are resolving to ethnicity and countries of origin, not to how someone is immigrating. In reality, you are complaining about how someone becomes a Legal Resident, because they are completing the same path to U.S. citizenship as other naturalized Americans.
Perhaps you've forgotten that immigrants are indeed screened to ascertain their ability (or their sponsor) to provide the necessary funds for their survival in this country. Why do you think there's a requirement that they not become a public charge? Again, we don't need more takers. We already have more than enough. As I've told you before, if an immigrant can't live in this country without government assistance, they should return home. We can't be the welfare state for the entire world.
Quote:
The Department of Justice (DoJ) published in the Federal Register on May 26, 1999 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that establishes clear standards governing whether an alien is inadmissible to the United States, ineligible to adjust immigration status, or has become deportable, on the grounds that he or she is likely to be or is a "public charge."
The DoJ proposes to define public charge to mean an alien who has become (for purposes of deportation) or is likely to become (for purposes of admissibility or adjustment) "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense."
Of course it is a bad idea because it rewards undesirable behavior and actions. I want that, You say no. So I take that. Should I be allowed to keep what I have stolen? What message does this send?
This is all about pandering and not about solutions.
...Perhaps you've forgotten that immigrants are indeed screened to ascertain their ability (or their sponsor) to provide the necessary funds for their survival in this country. Why do you think there's a requirement that they not become a public charge? Again, we don't need more takers. We already have more than enough. As I've told you before, if an immigrant can't live in this country without government assistance, they should return home. We can't be the welfare state for the entire world...
It is all on the sponsor, none of the would-be immigrant's potential for income is considered. Skills are not considered, it is the relationship that qualifies family-based immigration. Illegal aliens are "disqualified", they have no ability to sponsor even "Immediate Relatives" until they are at least Legal Permanent Residents.
If you change any ability they would have once they become Legal Permanent Residents or have naturalized, you are creating categories within that status...
Why do you want to rework the criteria that both you and I used to have our spouses in that status (I realize that you may not have had your ex immigrate for that relationship, but his category did change with that marriage)? What do U.S. citizens do if they want to marry a foreign national? Is that spouse excluded if they don't have the right and needed "skill", so that the U.S. citizen is forced to live outside the United States?
It is all on the sponsor, none of the would-be immigrant's potential for income is considered. Skills are not considered, it is the relationship that qualifies family-based immigration. Illegal aliens are "disqualified", they have no ability to sponsor even "Immediate Relatives" until they are at least Legal Permanent Residents.
If you change any ability they would have once they become Legal Permanent Residents or have naturalized, you are creating categories within that status...
Why do you want to rework the criteria that both you and I used to have our spouses in that status (I realize that you may not have had your ex immigrate for that relationship, but his category did change with that marriage)? What do U.S. citizens do if they want to marry a foreign national? Is that spouse excluded if they don't have the right and needed "skill", so that the U.S. citizen is forced to live outside the United States?
I think you are mixing apples with oranges here. Following along with the comments it is obvious that the discussion isn't about Americans wanting to marry a foreigner who is either here legally in the first place or waiting in their homelands. Obviously the American spouse would be able to support their foreign spouse in most cases. This is about potential immigrants who have no means of support that a family member here is able to commit to or skills to support themselves. Just being related to an American shouldn't be the only qualifying criteria to migrate here aka family reunification.
I think you are mixing apples with oranges here. Following along with the comments it is obvious that the discussion isn't about Americans wanting to marry a foreigner who is either here legally in the first place or waiting in their homelands. Obviously the American spouse would be able to support their foreign spouse in most cases. This is about potential immigrants who have no means of support that a family member here is able to commit to or skills to support themselves. Just being related to an American shouldn't be the only qualifying criteria to migrate here aka family reunification.
At each step I believe more and more that you don't understand the basics to immigration, what qualifies someone (it isn't only a matter of paying petition fees or waiting to be included in a quota limit), and how the process operates. You've also stated you want to change legal immigration based on "diversity" before (so a U.S. citizen couldn't immigrate a Hispanic spouse, but could for a black, white, or Asian spouse). Maybe you should hang around the Legal Immigration section at C-D more.
It's shamnesty. We don't NEED to legalize them. What they NEED to do is go home, and what we NEED to do is severely punish employers who hire illegals.
I do not understand punishing an employer who hires someone that comes through the door to get a job. The illegal immigrant problem is a government problem and the government should take care of their deportation therefore the employer would have no one coming through their doors that are illegal. Let's put the responsibility to those who should be responsible.
At each step I believe more and more that you don't understand the basics to immigration, what qualifies someone (it isn't only a matter of paying petition fees or waiting to be included in a quota limit), and how the process operates. You've also stated you want to change legal immigration based on "diversity" before (so a U.S. citizen couldn't immigrate a Hispanic spouse, but could for a black, white, or Asian spouse). Maybe you should hang around the Legal Immigration section at C-D more.
Maybe you should since you keep mentioning legal immigration yourself. Pot, kettle, black.
When I speak of diversity I am speaking of our quotas. They are lopsided in favor of Latinos.
I do not understand punishing an employer who hires someone that comes through the door to get a job. The illegal immigrant problem is a government problem and the government should take care of their deportation therefore the employer would have no one coming through their doors that are illegal. Let's put the responsibility to those who should be responsible.
Since an employer is also required to verify the work authorization of an applicant they are just as guilty and responsible if they knowlingly hire an illegal immigrant. If we followed your logic then an employer could hire a 12 year old if he so chose also.
I don't understand why Obama wants a pool of 20 million unemployed vs what we have now.
Me, neither. Plus, how about the soldiers returning who have basic high school educations? What are they supposed to do?
This quote from the article first stated above is just another whammy to consider:
Strain on social services. Legalizing millions of mostly poor people, many of whom have no job security or health insurance, will put a strain on already strapped social services agencies. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 57 percent of immigrant households (legal and illegal) used at least one welfare program in 2009. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most benefits, but once this group has legal status, they'll be eligible for the full range of benefits.
Just heard on the news this morning that graffiti has gone through the roof in San Jose, California because the police force has been dwindled down by a third due to budgetary cuts. Heck, the LE community needs to focus its attention on the Latino gangs plaguing their cities although it appears to be a losing proposition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
