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.
What kind of relationship? Should you be able to bring in your grandmother even though she has numerous health problems and requires massive medical treatment at public expense? Legal immigrants should be able to bring in a spouse and children. Illegals should be asked to leave.
Do you disagree with these stances?
My Grandmother? She's 95, but still in good health (and a U.S. citizen anyway). If you mean that for a foreign national Grandmother of a U.S. citizen, no, the relationship does not qualify for sponsorship to immigrate.
And I am fine with that...
For any nationality or ethnicity...
The closest comparison would be after my wife naturalizes, and whether my Mother-In-Law wants to be sponsored. My wife will have to prove we can support immigrating someone at the regular level. If everything fits under our medical insurance, so much the better.
In reality an "immigrant" (Legal Permanent Resident") can sponsor a spouse and minor children. They have to naturalize to U.S. citizenship (and reach a required age if they are a minor) before they can sponsor for parents or siblings. And I am fine with that too.
So if someone is qualified to legally immigrate, but is not within your "diversity" criteria, then you would prefer it not be allowed? Is that ethnic or national diversity? Returning to the educational level, does that then exclude immigrants even if they are the correct diversity level for you? How do economical attributes weigh in as well?
My Grandmother? She's 95, but still in good health (and a U.S. citizen anyway). If you mean that for a foreign national Grandmother of a U.S. citizen, no, the relationship does not qualify for sponsorship to immigrate.
And I am fine with that...
For any nationality or ethnicity...
The closest comparison would be after my wife naturalizes, and whether my Mother-In-Law wants to be sponsored. My wife will have to prove we can support immigrating someone at the regular level. If everything fits under our medical insurance, so much the better.
In reality an "immigrant" (Legal Permanent Resident") can sponsor a spouse and minor children. They have to naturalize to U.S. citizenship (and reach a required age if they are a minor) before they can sponsor for parents or siblings. And I am fine with that too.
For any nationality or ethnicity...
Providing medical insurance and other health care costs should be a requirement of any sponsor bringing in immigrants. The taxpayers should not have to pay for someone else's immigrants.
There may be legal avenues to come visit and maybe even do a temp job, but there are no legal avenues to immigrate.
Visas like the TN, J-1, and H2-B are not dual-intent visas. They are granted with the specific understanding that you will return to your home country after your temporary job is finished. If you tell the consular official that you hope to find a sponsor for a green card while you are in the U.S., they will reject your application right away. And good luck trying to get an employer to sponsor you for a green card with a high school education working in a non-specialty occupation like waiting tables or cooking up Mexican food.
The audience of the OP is for the people who shout to illegals "go back to your home country and wait in line to immigrate legally". The truth is there is NO legal way for them to immigrate to the U.S. unless they find some way to marry a U.S. citizen or if they already have relatives in the U.S.. Illegal immigrants are here not because they don't want to wait to do it legally, but because they want to be in the U.S. even though there is no legal way to do so. This doesn't excuse the fact that they are breaking the law and no one is denying that this makes them criminals. Call them criminals for coming here illegally, but don't call them lazy.
Of course if you are anti- illegal immigration but you already know that most Mexicans have no way of coming legally, then you can ignore this thread because my point has already been made
Some are lazy -- a lot of them could work very very hard back home but actually come here because the work is much easier here and our government doesn't permit anyone to fail.
Back home they have 12 kids and no education and job skills and it means a life of hard work - lots of it. Come here and have 12 kids with no education and jobs skills and it means you never have to worry about work again.
Most Americans would not be permitted to move legally to Canada, or to Mexico, or to any country. No nation is going to accept 5% or 10% or more of the USA population moving in, most nations will not accept the illiterate or unskilled. How many of our inner city types could legally immigrate to Mexico for example.
So yes of course the *majority* of Mexicans cannot move here. It's a stupid idea to think that we can import the *majority* of any large country. It's stupid to bring in people who have no ability to assimilate or even learn English.
Providing medical insurance and other health care costs should be a requirement of any sponsor bringing in immigrants. The taxpayers should not have to pay for someone else's immigrants.
So, with U.S. citizens being the typical sponsors for Immediate Relatives (and thus being covered otherwise [but an exception can happen, see below] under a common family plan), wouldn't that mean you desire better access to medical insurance plans for U.S. citizens?...
Sounds like the recent changes to many national plans needs to be adjusted to a grace period: My own coverage cannot add a family member unless they have a Social Security number issued to them (which becomes an immigration chicken-and-egg problem)...
Why not just object to them for being illegal aliens, whether they are adult or children?...
We do. You've been around long enough in this forum to know that. Why do you think we object to the Dream Act? Pre-teen illegals however do not compete for jobs against Americans at least that is one less negative.
So if someone is qualified to legally immigrate, but is not within your "diversity" criteria, then you would prefer it not be allowed? Is that ethnic or national diversity? Returning to the educational level, does that then exclude immigrants even if they are the correct diversity level for you? How do economical attributes weigh in as well?
Ethnicity usually goes along hand and hand with nationality in most cases. Of course economic benefit would be a consideration but I would still strive to try and keep it as even as possible to remain a diverse country without having our identifying culture and language diluted or replaced. The opposite usually occurs when there are too many immigrants from one ethnic/national group. Assimilation is more easily accomplished with diversity rather than colonization.
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.
