 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsAustralia and NZCanadaUSAUSA Marriage Base ImmigrationKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Immigration Forum / USA Marriage Base / September 2005MDUdall: Interesting News Item
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 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? > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? 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? > Is this just Marriage sponsorship ar all sponsorship?. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Are there waivers available? 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that when I think of "sponsorship") or limiting one's ability to be a > petitioner. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rene 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). > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that when I think of "sponsorship") or limiting one's ability to be a > petitioner. 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  SignatureOf course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry) > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? 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 SignatureOf course, the Internet also tells us that hot naked women want to befriend us, so we can't be 100% sure about everything we read there. (Dave Barry) > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? 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. > Really? A US citizen, who is a criminal, but is native born, > is immune? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > criminal acts not mentioned that could also demonstrate proclivity > towards abuse of the system and/or beneficiary. 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. > 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. 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? > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? I guess that puts these two woman out of the international dating scene http://www.lex18.com/global/story.asp?s=3906438&ClientType=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. > I guess that puts these two woman out of the international > dating scene [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ordered as part of the residents' treatment. The acts were apparently > done to harass next shift nursing assistants. 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.[/QUOTE] Oh My God! That just makes me want to cry. :( :mad: > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? What was the second amendment? Thanks James > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? 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?" > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Just my 2 cents > -- Gaude Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but when I read the article, it sounds to me as if they will be doing the background checks on both the US-born citizen AND the naturalized citizen. For the naturalized citizen, it simply might entail more investigation into his/her immigration history rather than the simpler check done for US-born citizens who don't have additional paperwork to look at. At least, that's the way I interpreted it. Rene > 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Just my 2 cents > -- Gaude I think that is what the House is trying to do. I don't see it applied only to naturalized U.S. citizens. > I just received an interesting news blurb from AILA (Thank you AILA) > that might be of interest. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What say you? Do you think this is a good idea? Hey Matt: 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. SignatureCertified Specialist Immigration & Nat. Law Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization > Hey Matt: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > marriage still continues. It can be debated whether the $1500 or the > lower $750 fraud fee would be applicable. I am assuming that if there was premium processing then that would become the norm. If they can offer the option, then perhaps they should just make it standard. 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.