|
Ashcans posted:Initial reactions are... not good. People are still going through it to make sure that we have the whole picture of what is required. The non-immigant stuff is an additional 2 pages of forms and is restricted to your current status (ie, if you are applying for an H-1B, they only care if you have previously used any public benefit while an H-1B in the last couple years). The biggest issue here is that all this information is about the beneficiary (worker) but the forms are signed by the petitioner (company). On the face of it that means you would have to disclose any use of public benefits you used to your employer and they have to review and attest to the information, which is incredibly awkward and invasive. But it's at least doable. What a bunch of hosed up bullshit. I'm sorry you and your clients have to deal with that.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2019 00:04 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:27 |
|
My clients at least have attorneys to deal with this, and a company willing to pay for them to work their way through it. I mean, it's still going to be tough, but the people I work with are high-skilled, well-paid professionals. This kind of thing is absolutely devastating to other groups, especially people who are going it without representation. I did get a good article in Vox about some of this - it's actually focused on the other change revolving around health insurance that has not been a priority because, again, my clients get health insurance that meets the requirements through their work. But the impact on other immigration streams is even worse than I expected.
|
# ? Oct 11, 2019 14:25 |
|
Ashcans posted:My clients at least have attorneys to deal with this, and a company willing to pay for them to work their way through it. I mean, it's still going to be tough, but the people I work with are high-skilled, well-paid professionals. This kind of thing is absolutely devastating to other groups, especially people who are going it without representation. Do the district court decisions about the public charge rule that came out today make any difference to this?
|
# ? Oct 12, 2019 00:01 |
|
Sorry I didn't respond to that question earlier; it was up in the air when I went home and I was trying hard not to think about this over the weekend. The answer is that USCIS has decided to continue the use of the older forms while the injunction is in place, so we got a small reprieve. At least until the matter is actually decided.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2019 01:38 |
|
So a friends, friends daughter moved from Sweden to the US when she was 19. She got married to a lawyer and had 2 kids, lived the life of a luxury wife for 20 years. Got into drugs and alcohol. The husband kicked her out and got sole custody of the kids. She had no money or insurance or anywhere to live so she moved back to Sweden. Now she's worried that she will never be able to see her daughters again because the way she understands it is that if she stays out of the US for a year or more she can't return to live there. How does it really work? She has never worked in her life and has no skills or money and she's currently being shunned by her family in Sweden so she's living with a friend.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 21:01 |
|
Katt posted:So a friends, friends daughter moved from Sweden to the US when she was 19. She got married to a lawyer and had 2 kids, lived the life of a luxury wife for 20 years. Got into drugs and alcohol. The husband kicked her out and got sole custody of the kids. She had no money or insurance or anywhere to live so she moved back to Sweden. Now she's worried that she will never be able to see her daughters again because the way she understands it is that if she stays out of the US for a year or more she can't return to live there. How does it really work? It depends on whether she ever became a citizen. 20 years is more than enough time to become a citizen, and if she did, that one isn't revoked by being away. If she was on a green card and stayed away from the country for a year or more, the USCIS may consider her green card abandoned and she will probably lose it unless she made arrangements prior to leaving.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 21:23 |
|
joepinetree posted:It depends on whether she ever became a citizen. 20 years is more than enough time to become a citizen, and if she did, that one isn't revoked by being away. If she was on a green card and stayed away from the country for a year or more, the USCIS may consider her green card abandoned and she will probably lose it unless she made arrangements prior to leaving. She doesn't seem to be a citizen and she just jumped on a flight to Sweden without any preparations at all.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 21:53 |
|
Katt posted:She doesn't seem to be a citizen and she just jumped on a flight to Sweden without any preparations at all.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:02 |
|
Groda posted:Has she been living there illegally the whole time? I assume she could stay because she had a husband and children there but never bothered to become a full citizen.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:06 |
|
You don't really have enough information to work out what the exact situation is going to be for her here. Based on what she's worried about, it sounds like she's a Permanent Resident and is worried that leaving will mean she has abandoned it. If she was a citizen it wouldn't matter, and if she hadn't kept up her status the one year doesn't matter because she would have been barred for ten years immediately. In theory, by staying outside the US for more than six months she has compromised her permanent residence; the next time she tries to enter the US, she may be admitted but the officer would inform her that her residence is being revoked and she could be placed in removal proceedings. In practice, sometimes people don't abide by the six month rule and coast for years before they get flagged and have it revoked; it's possible that she could re-enter without any problems, but that would be an officer error in her favor. But you'll certainly find anecdotes about people who have done this without a hitch. What she should do is talk to an immigration lawyer about her situation and her goals. Does she want to return to the US to live? Then she needs to figure out how she can try to preserve her residence at this point - it would involve making an argument that she didn't intend to leave for so long and has been unable to return due to complicating factors. Does she want to live in Sweden and be able to visit her children regularly? Then she could also formally renounce her green card and simply enter as a visitor for short periods. Also there would need to be clarity on what "got into drugs and alcohol" means. If she has arrests or convictions for drug offenses it will cause issues in any immigration work.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:46 |
|
Yes I don't have enough info. Just that she's really hung about that one year. She has no convictions. Also the ex-husband wants to be rid of her completely if he can help it. She wants to return to the US and live there permanently but she has no prospects to make a living.
|
# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:53 |
|
Update: apparently she is a US citizen but she claims that if she changes her legal residence to Sweden and then spends a year in Sweden she might not be able to return to the US.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 19:29 |
It sound like immigration is her third or fourth biggest problem tbh
|
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 19:32 |
|
Katt posted:Update: apparently she is a US citizen but she claims that if she changes her legal residence to Sweden and then spends a year in Sweden she might not be able to return to the US. That doesn't make any sense. If she is a US citizen, the only way she'd lose that citizenship is if she herself forfeited it or if there was some irregularity when she applied for it that made the US want to revoke it (i.e., she lied on her paperwork on something serious). As far as I know Sweden allows dual citizenship, so I don't know why she would not be able to return to the US if she is a citizen. Unless she has, I don't know, legal problems like a probation or something that doesn't allow her to move away from the US, which would mean arrest upon return, this makes absolutely no sense.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 19:48 |
|
There is a really good chance that she was warned about leaving the US for too long/changing her residence when she was a green card holder and never absorbed/doesn't realize this doesn't affect you once you have citizenship.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 20:03 |
|
Her family suspects that she might be straight up lying in an attempt to not have to register with the Swedish social office for welfare benefits because the social office might make her do stuff.
|
# ? Dec 6, 2019 22:11 |
|
Katt posted:Her family suspects that she might be straight up lying in an attempt to not have to register with the Swedish social office for welfare benefits because the social office might make her do stuff. This scandinavian person has been ameripoisoned. There is no hope
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 01:12 |
|
Permanent Residence is forfeited if you leave the country for a year or more with "intention of living abroad" If you're a US citizen you have taxes to pay even living abroad, so either way she's probably got somethkng she needs to sort out.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 01:18 |
|
Update to update. Turns out she's not a citizen after all.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 14:26 |
|
Katt posted:Update to update. Turns out she's not a citizen after all. Is there a criminal history involved? Definitely a red flag, not getting citizenship after all that time, since dual citizenship has been uncontrovertially allowed in both countries since 2001.
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 14:57 |
|
Groda posted:Is there a criminal history involved? Definitely a red flag, not getting citizenship after all that time, since dual citizenship has been uncontrovertially allowed in both countries since 2001. If there was she wouldn't say. She's basically been a trophy wife for half her life. Maybe she just didn't have any initiative for it?
|
# ? Dec 7, 2019 15:23 |
|
So I made a thread waaaay back that was generally about discussing the broader issue of US illegal immigration and possible solutions that addressed current immoral U.S. policies, and it provoked some interesting discussion. I'll repost my OP and some interesting excerpts here for those without archives. I'm curious about others' thoughts on this and where things stand with the issue now, and what broader ideas for solutions anyone might have?-Blackadder- posted:I'm a liberal democrat, but I have to admit I am simply not very knowledgeable about the issue of Illegal Immigration. And it seems like I can't really find any kind of descent resources that will explain it in relatively simple terms. I can't even really tell where the two parties stand on the issue. FilthyImp posted:Here's a few morsels that will probably get mentioned pretty soon. ApeAgitator posted:
Juosazg posted:If US wants to stop Mexicans from immigrating the solutions are fairly simple: repeal NAFTA and either stop subsidizing US agro corporations or allow Mexico to protect their farmers with tariffs. Munin posted:As a quick swerve.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2020 20:31 |
|
I think that "go after businesses that hire undocumented immigrants with high fines and zero tolerance" is a mistaken approach. It's not necessarily a terrible idea, and it might even be mildly effective if the fines are big enough. But while it clumsily attempts to attack the economic underpinnings for undocumented immigration, it doesn't really get to the true core of the issue. When immigration comes up in the political discourse, it's rare that people stop to seriously consider a very important question: why is it cheaper and more profitable for businesses to hire undocumented immigrants? Sure, the obvious answer is "because you can pay them below minimum wage". But if you take a step back and think about it, minimum wage laws don't discriminate by migration status, so undocumented immigrants are theoretically entitled to the same minimum wage as legal workers. There's no law saying they don't have to be paid minimum wage, so why are they so widely underpaid? The answer to that cuts to the heart of immigration discourse in the US: it's because undocumented immigrants are reluctant to report abuses and illegal conditions to the authorities (or even complain about them to the employer) for fear that they'll be deported. So hawkish immigration discourse and harsh enforcement actually make it more attractive for businesses to hire undocumented workers, because a hardline ICE increases the workers' fear of the government and makes it easier for the companies to control and abuse them. If you've ever felt like it was weird for the right's strongly pro-business outlook to coexist so smoothly with their ranting about underpaid foreigners stealing away jobs from citizens who'd be paid more, that's the knot that ties it all together. A scary, uncompromising ICE vastly increases the ability of businesses (and others) to exploit undocumented workers. Considering the impracticality of sealing off the border and the considerable economic incentives for both migrants and businesses, no amount of immigration enforcement is sufficient to stop illegal immigration. And if undocumented workers dare to assert their rights under US labor law, well, ICE is right there and ready to make an example of them. https://twitter.com/Sensiablue/status/1159597925305147398 https://twitter.com/NYTNational/status/1200535172220882944 IMO, the most important thing that can be done about illegal immigration is to take away ICE's enforcement resources and give them to the Department of Labor instead, tasking labor inspectors to investigate employers' wage and safety practices. Eliminating the disparity in wages and working conditions between documented and undocumented migrants would substantially change the conversation.
|
# ? Sep 9, 2020 03:02 |
|
I work in immigration and while it's been getting worse forever the last couple years (and this year in particular) have been an amazing garbage fire. The system was not designed for any modern application of business, and it sort of groans and limps along on the basis of a kind of gentleman's understanding on how stuff is supposed to work. That has been eroding and the current administration is using every option to gleefully tear it up, so we're regularly thrown into panic and disarray. There have been numerous changes jammed or overturned in courts, meaning that people may not have a day-to-day understanding of what is going on, even if they have been operating completely within the law. As above, immigration lies at an intersection of a LOT of different groups and perspectives, which as effectively prevented anyone from opening it up and doing the kind of real renovation that is required even when one party holds enough of the government to theoretically do so. Instead we get flailing, piecemeal action that attacks or corrects single points that a lobby has managed to leverage hard enough without solving any of the real problems or any real reform of the system itself. Main Paineframe is right, the main reason undocumented work is popular is because it provides leverage to companies to avoid their crimes. This actually applies beyond illegal immigration though; many professional workers are comparatively over the barrel with their employers because their presence in the US relies on their sponsor. Even if you're an educated white-collar worker, are you going to push back on working late, maybe not recording overtime? Are you going to refuse to come in for projects, or deal with scut work? If your wage doesn't rise year over year, you are far more restricted than a US worker. And when you get down to the guest worker program, the abuses between the documented and undocumented workers are pretty similar - and it's permitted essentially because enforcement is so bad and if any of them complain, they can be gone before the DOL gets around to hearing anything. Honestly the whole thing is a giant mess, I have no idea how to fix it short of disbanding ICE/CBP/starting over, and I'm pretty much trying to figure out how to leave the industry because I can't cope with how screwed up it has gotten.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2020 23:09 |
|
Ashcans posted:I work in immigration and while it's been getting worse forever the last couple years (and this year in particular) have been an amazing garbage fire. The system was not designed for any modern application of business, and it sort of groans and limps along on the basis of a kind of gentleman's understanding on how stuff is supposed to work. That has been eroding and the current administration is using every option to gleefully tear it up, so we're regularly thrown into panic and disarray. There have been numerous changes jammed or overturned in courts, meaning that people may not have a day-to-day understanding of what is going on, even if they have been operating completely within the law. Hurry the gently caress up with my i-751 pendejo
|
# ? Oct 8, 2020 23:22 |
|
Ashcans posted:Honestly the whole thing is a giant mess, I have no idea how to fix it short of disbanding ICE/CBP/starting over, and I'm pretty much trying to figure out how to leave the industry because I can't cope with how screwed up it has gotten. Dang. Sorry to hear that. Your posts have been very informative and it sounds like you've helped bring a lot of people in over the years. Can't blame you for needing a break. The last 4 years have been a steadily worsening disaster. Good luck finding a new career that you like better.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2020 23:38 |
|
New President. Slightly less lovely situation on the border. ICE finally in deep poo poo. And goons can't stop debating internment camp pedantry. By order of IK Majorian, I revive this thread.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 05:43 |
|
That which is terrible policy may eternal lie And over strange presidencies even ICE may die.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 09:51 |
|
So can we say 'concentration' camps in here or are we still required to pretend 'internment camp' is an actual legal different term and not literally just a synonym for concentration camp.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 14:41 |
|
sexpig by night posted:So can we say 'concentration' camps in here or are we still required to pretend 'internment camp' is an actual legal different term and not literally just a synonym for concentration camp. it's not just a synonym, it's a euphemism.it's a kindler, gentler word used to make people feel better about what the US government is doing. Grouchio posted:New President. Slightly less lovely situation on the border. ICE finally in deep poo poo. And goons can't stop debating internment camp pedantry. using the right term for concentration camps is important. we want people to realize the gravity of what the US is doing at the border
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 14:43 |
|
Also what the gently caress is this 'ICE is in deep poo poo' framing? Biden's anti abolishing ICE and if it's about the camps then HHS has always been the government liaison of them and outsourcing them to private contracts just like they're doing now. ICE has faced no consequences under Biden.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 14:48 |
|
Also feels like a bad omen when you tell your camp guards they can't talk https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1372136896504201217 That, combined with the whole 'not letting lawyers and journalists in' is pretty loving grim!
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:01 |
|
Regardless of how you feel about guards _possibly_ just mad that it's harder to do things like this: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/border-patrol-biden-crisis-dhs-kevin-mccarthy-republicans-insiders-b1818116.html This part of the NBC article remains bad: quote:Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security have not offered any media tours of the newly opened processing facility in Donna, Texas, which is reported to be over capacity with unaccompanied migrant children, a DHS official said. Want to show that you're actually doing a better job than Trump? Let people report on it.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:23 |
|
yea it feels like even if the 'well Border Patrol is fascist and wants to make Biden look bad by lying to Fox' poo poo is right the way to fight that would be, ya know, letting journalists and lawyers into the camp to report on what's going on.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:25 |
|
Does any of this sound credible? https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1371921671750303747 People are rationalizing the media blackout with wanting to stop an unruly ICE from further undermining these new policies: https://twitter.com/BuddJenn/status/1371965457704525828 But on the other hand, wouldn't you want to use the media to expose problems with an agency you're trying to put to heel? "They can manipulate the media", okay, but the President can send the head of DHS over there with media to take a look at things. What are they gonna do, deport him, like he's continuing to have single adults and families? e:fb
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:26 |
|
It sounds to me like it's an awfully convenient excuse as to why Joe Biden is mishandling the border situation. It's amazing how it's always someone else's fault when the democrats fail.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:33 |
|
I think at best they're stalling for time hoping that they can clean the camps up just well and long enough to weather a media inspection before going back to business as usual. But that's just a theory.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:39 |
|
That ex-agent article is crazy, I wouldn't be surprised if it's all true. The organizational culture is completely toxic, they need to bring in new management and start quietly firing and replacing existing personnel.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:45 |
|
Investigating and prosecuting existing personnel would also be nice.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:48 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:27 |
|
Yea has Biden done ANYTHING about the, at the very least, multiple reports of rape and abuse from these camps when the Bad Man (tm) was running them? Like, that feels like a major part of making our concentration camps more woke and good.
|
# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:50 |