1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Proposed Rule For Expanded Provisional Waiver Of Unlawful Presence

Discussion in 'General discussion about executive action' started by ashwikgreddy, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. righttolive

    righttolive Member

    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Should the child be of certain age?

    So if I understand this correct-- anyone entering the US soil legally ends up becoming out of status or illegal can benefit from this? Or just out of status...if so what qualifies as out of status?
     
  2. Kamakazee

    Kamakazee Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am confused. What is the difference between "out of status" and "illegal"? Isn't it illegal to get out of status? As immigrants, isn't it our job to make sure we stay in status?
     
  3. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    Anyone who does not hold valid immigration status is illegal. I know there is some controversy over the use of that term, but to me if a person is not here legally, they are, by definition, illegal. Some illegals enter the United States without inspection (illegal border crossers). Others enter legally, but then allow their lawful status to lapse as a result of overstay, unauthorized employment, or other status violations.
     
  4. Kamakazee

    Kamakazee Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both of which are illegal. Which means being "out of status" is illegal.
     
  5. Ron Gotcher

    Ron Gotcher Attorney at Law

    Messages:
    35,917
    Likes Received:
    4,298
    Trophy Points:
    25,213
    Correct.
     
  6. righttolive

    righttolive Member

    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Not that I intend on doing this...but with this rule we EB community with children born in this country could just 'run' out of status and just get Ead...is it that easy?

    Or at least this rule can be a cushion if things doesn't work.
     
  7. Kamakazee

    Kamakazee Super Moderator

    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    1,368
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why I am curious. I admit I have not read the text of this rule. What is the provisional waiver provided for approved I-140 people? I see this only for people who have immigrant visa pending with DOS, which means it only applies to people who have filed for AOS. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.
     
  8. jdoe99

    jdoe99 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I have never seen something become easy for the legal community. So if something seems easy, its probably too good to be true.
     
  9. Jaya

    Jaya New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I had to respond to some of the people talking about posting "comments" for Provisional Unlawful regulation, while there's no reason to be mean or personally disrespectful towards "undocumented immigrants" at the same time we as community in the EB based GC have every right to question the motive (and possibly mad) of the DHS/USCIS under this administration. Before you read the rest of the post, I am not saying we should post any negative comments but I completely understand where those folks who did are coming from, but from political game perspective we should probably generally refrain from doing that.
    Here are the facts, the GOP doesn't care about any type of immigrant legal or illegal but atleast they don't discriminate they are bad to everyone, so in a very weird way it doesn't bother me as much. But, here's the fact about the Democrats, it seems whether its this administration or the folks in Congress it's a pretty much one-sided affair of supporting causes of "undocumented immigrants" and paying lip-service (feeble lip service I might add) to plight of legal immigrants in general.

    Please riddle me this, why do we have DACA before I-140/EAD ? In any sane world unlike the bizzaro world we live in, as immigrants who have followed the law we would be the first to receive any relief (no not like an after thought or a byproduct of the EO) in this system. And yes any and every single resource would first go into providing relief to people who have legally waited enough, and then you can implement changes to the "undocumented". Do you guys think the President under any circumstance would have announced a sweeping EO that covered only legal immigrants, I don't believe so. I am saying this because why after 9 months after the EO are we still only in the first stages of "Rule making process", and that if Texas Judge hadn't intervened the administration by now would have been processing both expanded DACA and the newly minted DAPA. I am not saying completely circumvent the Rule making process but it's pretty clear it's not a priority inspite of their insistence.
    Did you guys also know this, DHS/USCIS has almost stopped work-site enforcement in many manufacturing , meat packing plants which has a lot of "undocumented workers". But, you know what they are being "tough" on - H1-b amendments and work-site enforcements here. Again, let them enforce the law but why this discrimination ? None of this adds and that's why I understand why these people are posting these comments, see this one below :
    "Cant believe this is happening,people who follow law of the land knows too well about unlawful presence and their consequences. i know personally lot of friends who left the country just so they could have their records as clean as possible.
    Why this unnecessary benefits being doled out to people who have already broke the law?. It is very much a slap on the faces of people who follow law to the final word.
    If you feel like you have to help the immigrant community, look into how the backlogged peoples career and prime time in their life are being wasted by always thinking and playing by the USCIS/DHS agenda and not by their natural career progression."
    I understand where he's coming from, maybe not politically optimal comment but I share his frustration very much. I hope for all of us that administration does fulfill it's promise and provide us the freedom and relief.
     
    Legal Immigrant and nikhs84 like this.
  10. R_S

    R_S Guru

    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Very well said Jaya
     
    Legal Immigrant likes this.
  11. kashish sharad

    kashish sharad Guru

    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Jaya,
    I agree with you almost on all points.....
    But here is the problem. You and I have grown up with values what is known in the liberal world as 'meritocracy centric' model. The liberals ( Congress in India, or democrats ) detest meritocracy based world. They believe that the world is not fair if it is based on meritocracy alone. There is a lot to be spoken here but for this context, I will leave this discussion for some other day.
    Inside democrats philosophy, it is unreasonable that each gets what one works for. They believe each gets what the government decides one deserves. See the republicans are greedy and corrupt , and democrats are greedy, corrupt and re-distributionist.

    The purpose of the above para is not to start political debate, neither do I support republicans or democrats on all issues. But to reflect on your point why we think it is unfair on the legal community. You see, we will always think that we have followed rules and any relief should first be given to legals before illegals. There is some merit in this argument but that is not what democrats think. They take a more politically expedient stand and cover it in the cloth of compassion. They want hispanic votes and all this relief is covered in the guise of 'Family union'. In the interest of disclosure, I am not against this waiver because the practical nature is we are in this fight together with undocumented ( whether we like it or not ). Also there are genuine cases where this waiver will help people who really need them on the basis of medical and other needs.

    We are suffering a lot, I am in this country for 11 years, under lot of stress every day due to stupid back log. However, as a person, as a human, I will not fight against relief to undocumented immigrants since in an odd way they are having the same stress in their life as my family is having.

    My 2 cents is do not vote for democrats when you become a citizen and you don't want this country to be run based on whims and fantasy. But don't interrupt in waivers for illegals just because we are legals. They are humans as well, and for all you know living under constant stress for many more years then we are.

    P.S. I am not intending to preach but only want to express my opinion and feelings. I find that sharing will reduce my daily dose of immigration induced stress.

    Best Regards,
     
    Legal Immigrant likes this.
  12. smartboy

    smartboy Senior Member

    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Yes. Most of us share similar feelings, but venting it out on a fora like regulations.gov will not yield us anything. Immigration subject is seen as one bucket by everyone and that bucket is almost filled with the undocumented folks. Whether we like it or not, its a fact. We can blame anyone we want to, but numbers speak. 11 million (or whatever that astronomical number is) is way way more than EB folks stuck in backlog (including those on temporary visas that get 'exploited' so to speak). if anything the comments can be used against us/provide a good excuse by admin/congressional caucuses saying 'see, my constituents show comments from your folks that are opposing/not helping us. now tell me what my motivational factor is to support AC05 or HR213 is'

    For anyone to notice us as getting claustrophobic in the little jar called 'immobility due to immigration', we have to have a better strategy than saying "that kid got a candy and not me". I would not be saying this if i did not *try* to see the bigger picture, however illogical that may be (to my personal situation). otherwise, that little jar may just be thought of as being 'noisy' and 'distracting' and eventually put aside or thrown away..

    what those commenters do not get is unless there is a support from the hispanic caucus in congress and admin (Cecilia Munoz is from La Raza), our stakes (whatever little we have now - R and R in November diluted to 140 with 485 to just 140 EAD now to one can guess what it may be) get dimmer and dimmer every day.

    if the argument is 'atleast few are speaking their hearts out', it's imperative that we should be prepared for 11 million (just throwing that number there) negative comments when-and-if AC05 is opened for comments. dont think we want that to happen..
     
    Legal Immigrant, mar212011 and jdoe99 like this.

Share This Page