I'm American. My wife is Argentine. We live in Argentina in large part because when we wanted to marry in 2006, we couldn't get her a permanent visa to live in the USA.
Her fiancee visa was in fact quickly approved, pending an interview at the US consulate in Buenos Aires. We waited and waited, called, had our lawyers call, and the response was always "when the consulate is ready to make an appointment, they will call you." They never called, leaving us in limbo for over a year and saddled with thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Eventually we grew tired of the uncertainty. I moved to Argentina, we got married, and we've lived here ever since.
Argentina is not perfect. But the legal status of foreign residents here is much clearer than in the USA. As the husband of a citizen, permanent residency was automatic provided I didn't have a criminal record in my home country (I don't). I am allowed to vote in municipal elections. And, now as the father of an Argentine citizen, citizenship is also automatic if I want it.
You might think that Argentina can afford to be generous with immigrants because it has nowhere near the load of foreign residents that the USA does, and to an extent that's certainly true. But on the other hand, Argentina has fairly large immigrant communities (from Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia and China), more social welfare services (basic healthcare is free here), and a lot less financial resources than the USA.
Having now lived somewhere else and been on the "other side" of the immigration issue, I feel indignant and outraged when I read about how my country treats non-citizen residents.
I married my wife overseas in 2007. In 2008 we applied for immigration at a US embassy (I sponsored her as my spouse), waited a couple of months, and received an appointment date. My wife was granted a visa at the appointment. I made a comment during the interview on how the process was so painless and the consulate basically said, "well, you guys are married". 3 years later, she is a US citizen. I think the fiancee visa route plays second fiddle to family immigration. That and maybe the Buenos Aires consulate needs to get their act together. It's a shame you spent so much money on lawyers as well :| Good luck to you...you may want to try again now that you are married.
Glad to hear you had such a better experience. There are definitely a lot of factors to consider.
Luckily since our initial terrible experience, we've had nothing but good ones with the US Consulate in Buenos Aires. So I'm hopeful that if we ever decide to move back to the USA, being married for 5 years and having a child will count in our favor and make the process much easier like it was for you.
As it is though, I've grown pretty comfortable here and don't know if we'll ever move back. All's well that ends well, I suppose. :)
Yes. Marry over-seas then apply for the visa at over-seas consulate --should take about 3-months or so.
I know a handful of couples like that. It was pretty painless --so long as they married prior to coming to the US. So they were legally married overseas, then applied at overseas consulate and green card was granted --citizenship can be applied for a year after arrival, and (I'm under the impression) most have been granted citizenship within one to two years. No fuss, that I've heard of.
Now, (you) working overseas (not in the US) as a non citizen can get tricky for US citizens --you have to be sponsored, of course, but in some countries, like Argentina, you (or employer most likely) would have to prove there was no local available to fulfill the job requirement. That can be a tough hurdle.
Actually, after a year you apply to have "conditional permanent residence" removed. Then after three years you can apply for citizenship. It may be less for members of the military though.
Is this a personal experience that you are generalizing or it is actually faster to get a wife to the US vs a fiancee? Any link to actual law is appreciated.
I've spoken with several couples in Tokyo that were told by the US Embassy here that they should get married before trying to move to the US, since marrying afterwards would be a nightmare.
My understanding also is that its way way way way better to get married overseas and then try to get into the US. Sorry, I don't have any links for you.
It will still probably take a few months to a year. Which is probably going to make it difficult to have a job lined up in advance.
In any case its better because it doesn't require you and your spouse to be separated.
Does "fiancee" even have any legal defintion in the US? Nobody signs anything when they propose and I'm pretty sure that states don't recognise it as a legal status, at least not until various common-law cohabitation conditions comes into play.
It's a particular type of immigration Visa the K-1 is a "Fiancee Visa". Note that you are required to get married within 90 days. The point of it is to allow US Citizens to get married within the US to non-US Citizens.
Nobody is going to dispute that the immigration laws in the US are draconian. They're a patchwork sown together by various special interests and make very little sense. However, in the past, they were rarely enforced. Only in instances where someone committed a felony or something of that nature. Over the last decade and especially during the Obama administration, ICE stepped up enforcement. If I had to guess, I'd say it's related to the recession? I honestly don't know why.
It's "get tough" politics. Unions donate billions to Democrats, and they are unhappy with immigration in many industries. (ie. Meat packing, whose union membership has declined dramatically as a result of companies being allowed to exploit undocumented labor.) On the other side, you have conservatives, who are always up in arms about the immigration "crisis". These folks are balanced by the business-focused republicans, who need immigrants to make money.
The end result? Instead of allowing legitimized, orderly immigration from Mexico and Central America, we pretend that that it isn't happening, and then spend billions on needless social services and draconian law enforcement.
Both sets of my grandparents were immigrants to the United States from Ireland. On my mother's side, my grandfather had a 7th grade education (common in rural Ireland) and my grandmother was pregnant when they immigrated here after WW2. All they needed to do was scrape together a few buck and fill out some forms, and they arrived in New York as legitimate resident aliens, able to get jobs and function fully in society.
Today, my grandparents would be accused of moving here to give birth to an "anchor baby" and would probably be here illegally, unless they won one of the elusive green card lottery slots.
Plenty of blame for both sides here, I've heard a whole bunch of immigrant bashing at, well... every Republican event in the last 5 years. Way more than Obama typically does.
My read on it was Obama stepped up enforcement for political cover when he gets accused of things like that by the Republicans, which is still plenty of stupid and weak on his part. Especially since they'll never agree to actually do comprehensive immigration reform if it would be perceived as a victory for Obama.
Take this with a grain of salt, since this is conjecture, but don't underestimate the weight and inertia of gigantic bureaucracies.
ICE was set up during the later years of the Bush administration, and now they've hit their stride after ramping up. The Obama Administration could expend political capital to do something about the issue, but that's probably not a winning political stance.
I am convinced the economic climate plays at least some part into it. How big of a part, I am not sure. But looking at the history of all kinds of countries, you can see that when there are issues like high unemployment rate, then the sentiment towards foreigners tends to not be the most welcomeing.
Also the worse the situation, the more radical the actions to turn it around will be - no matter if those actions actually help or make it worse.
Took me more than a year and a letter from my congressmen to get a fiancée visa for my wife.
- Even when we finally got an interview the visa was rejected at first because I was living there, with her, instead of back in the USA, alone. They said I had not maintained 'domicile' in the USA and therefore did not intend to return home.
- When we finally received the visa it listed my father as the sponsor instead of me. We had to get a new one.
- Somewhere on the USCIS website it actually stated that applicants were 'guilty until proven innocent'
- In the waiting room, waiting for the final, correct visa there were a group of Americans waiting to adopt. They were given a nice instruction session on what to do, how to fill out the forms, how to deal with the Chinese adoption policies. I, however, felt I had been actively refused help at every turn in a deliberately opaque bureaucracy.
You see, it can be very difficult to fire high level bureaucrats. If you don't have faith in them it can be more dangerous to leave them in place.
Transferring them to South America is a popular solution. It's nice enough that they won't fight the transfer, and safe enough that they can't mess things up too badly.
That's to ensure the marriage wasn't a false one for the purposes of immigration fraud.
Honestly, as long as your brother-in-law got his permanent residency in a timely fashion and could work in the United States and live with his family, I don't think there's anything to complain about here. I went through the same process - apart from the naturalization at the end, which I've got no desire to do.
As a kid I always wanted to go to the USA, maybe even live there. So many things to see, the business opportunities and the propagated freedom were very attractive.
During the last decade though, the USA have done a fantastic job of eradicating every bit of what was left of this dream.
Nowerdays all you hear from them is how Hollywood is destroying little guys' lifes for downloading a bunch of songs, exporting those policies with force to other countries, insane financial schemes and starting several wars.
Right now I am planning a trip to Japan. A country, which was hit by a nuclear meltdown crisis, floods, earthquakes and more. I'd still choose it over going to the USA any day. Maybe that's something to think about.
The USA are going down fast and it doesn't look like there are changes in sight in regards to their handling of immigrants, the wars or the rampand self-made economic problems.
Same here. When I was a kid I pictured myself living "the american dream" when I grew up, maybe move to the States when I became a successful entrepreneur (haven't made it yet!).
A few years ago I visited the USA for the first time -and have a been there a few times since- and didn't like what I saw. I like Americans, and I like a lot of things about the US, but wouldn't live there at all.
I think the problem was what Hollywood movies made me believe the US was, and what it really is.
EDIT: Not sure why, but this is being downvoted. If you find it offensive or inaccurate, please let me know why. I don't care about the votes, I just would like to know why.
I've always been a movie buff, and so as a kid I had some miss-conceptions and naive beliefs about the US.
Some random ones I can think of now (a bit busy ATM):
- Cops are nice and they are out there to help people.
- There are no criminals in US neighborhoods. It is ok to even leave your car unlocked.
- There's no unemployment in the US (or it's minimal). If you go to college you automatically get a nice paying job. Only college students or lazy ones work at fast food joints.
- Health care is widely available and easy to get by.
The first day I got to the US I was detained at the airport (in TX) because I mentioned to the immigration officer that I (had) worked at immigration in my home country. He freaked out for some reason and I was taken to a tiny room with some people where I was questioned about my "real" reasons to go to the US, I always replied the same (the truth) and they kept pushing like I was lying. This went on for an hour until I was release and allowed to board on the plane to make the connection. Obviously had to take another flight since the original plane had left.
Then that same day I went to a coffee shop with a friend in a quite nice area of Phx, AZ. While we were inside, someone stole the spare wheel from his Jeep. He then told me they had a car stolen a few months before.
I saw several homeless roaming the streets. Which I had always pictured (as a child) only happened in NYC or something, and only because they didn't want to work or had some issues in their personal life.
While talking about living in the US with some friends there, they explained how health care works in the US. Basic health care is free in my home country and higher end procedures are fairly affordable, so I was shocked to learn about the US system. I don't believe much in socialism, but I can't think of a good reason for people in a civilized society to not be healed for free (retirement is a different issue though).
Got a few minutes and wanted to make some more comments...
I've had several ugly situations while entering the US. Last time I visited (March this year) I went through LAX. I was greeted very nicely by the officer, had all my paperwork done and off I went. Then I went to Baja California (MX) where I would stay at a friends/client house.
Then I had to cross the border (through Tijuana) to go to a marketing expo at AZ. The experience was nerve-wrecking. The border patrol officer started telling me I was hiding something because of my body language (apparently he saw too much "Lie to me") and started questioning why I had friends in the US, how had I met them and so on. After about 20 minutes we were let go.
Like I said, I've worked at immigration in my home country, so I know how it works and stuff, but there are more professional ways to handle matters than just accuse people, push and see if they bite.
Also, what I missed to add to my comment above... In (most) mainstream US movies, you see that no matter what your job is you can lead a pretty nice life. Even if you work as a bartender, you can have your small apartment and be in charge of your life.
I don't think it works like that. I met a client that was a school teacher and he was broke. Some of my clients have declared for bankruptcy, and some very, very rich clients have lost a lot of RE and have to downsize their homes by an order of magnitude.
I know it works like that pretty much everywhere, but for some reason all this things I imagined as a kid, stuck with me until I visited the US. It's like deep down we hope there's a place were things are better, and the US could be that place; so we buy into the dream (until we realize it was a dream and there's no such place).
> The border patrol officer started telling me I was hiding something because of my body language (apparently he saw too much "Lie to me") and started questioning why I had friends in the US, how had I met them and so on
Cops are dicks, plain and simple, they are not your friends; Hollywood definitely glosses over this. The reality is more like Training Day, those are real cops, mostly straight but dirty when it benefits them. How they treat you tends to depend heavily on your race.
> In (most) mainstream US movies, you see that no matter what your job is you can lead a pretty nice life. Even if you work as a bartender, you can have your small apartment and be in charge of your life.
Ah, interesting observation; yea, that's not true that all.
I don't think that all cops are dicks, but they have the power to behave like it if they want to.
One of my dream jobs has always been to be a murder investigator though (I'm a big fan of "The Wire"):-)
And yeah, even though I'm from South America, I don't look too latino. I once crossed the border with two mexican friends. They definitely treated them worse than me.
The movies in my country are about one man fighting another for the love of a woman, gunfights between families, going from a rural town to the big city and getting robbed then having to return home defeated. They are about things that make a difference on a personal level. American movies are about fighting to save the world. Fighting everyone to protect your family. Doing the right thing. They deal with so much money that the translation seems outrageous. Americans in the movies are kind, wise and noble, but in the real America, people are petty. Walking down the street someone will try to pick a fight because you looked at them. You get hundred dollar tickets, if you cross the street anywhere except the corner. Buses kick people off, if they are missing ten cents. People are quick to point to their Constitutional rights, but are offended by everything save smiles. And that is when you find out that few Americans fit the Hollywood American archetype.
Interesting perspective, though, you seem to have had some bad experiences with Americans, sounds like you've been to the bad side of some big city. Small town America are closer to the Hollywood prototype you see in the movies; friendly people, helping strangers and all that.
I grew up in Mexico. My uncle had lived in California and he always spoke of the US like a mythical land. He talked about orange trees everywhere, which was not something to see in Mexico because all the oranges would be stolen long before they were ripe. And he also spoke of sandwiches the size of your palm. My father had also been in the US and he was more grim in his stories. He spoke of how my uncle lived on animal crackers and water to save money fast because he missed home so much.
My stories are somewhere closer to the middle. I have seen some Americans do amazing things and I have seen Americans act like punks. It's almost as if doing those things is part of being human.
> He talked about orange trees everywhere, which was not something to see in Mexico because all the oranges would be stolen long before they were ripe.
American's pick anything from a tree without being forced to... never happen, lol.
> And he also spoke of sandwiches the size of your palm.
I thought sandwiches were pretty much the same size everywhere?
I should have been clearer on the sandwich thing. When he said that it was the size of his palm, he held his hand as he would have held a hamburger. Looking back, I'm quite sure he was describing hamburgers and not sandwiches.
Speaking of sandwiches, I was at a subway. A homeless man was ordering a sub. When his turn to pay came up, he took out a handful of Subway stamps and handed them to cashier. The cashier went on to tell the homeless man about how a roll of stamps had been stolen from that restaurant and that were not accepting them. The homeless man picked up his bag and left. The cashier and the sandwich maker had a small discussion culminating with a who cares is not like he ever bought a sandwich from us. A couple of customers later an older man asked how much for sandwich since it was just going to get thrown away. The guy behind the counter gave a price. He paid for it, walked outside and handed it to the homeless man.
> A couple of customers later an older man asked how much for sandwich since it was just going to get thrown away. The guy behind the counter gave a price. He paid for it, walked outside and handed it to the homeless man.
You're just repeating the obvious part of what he said; I already know this, I'm interested in the details of what differed between what the movies told them vs their actual experiences.
Just imagine you know nothing about the US except what you see in movies. Do you see a lot of poor people?
There obviously are movies and TV which show a much more "real" version of the world. But the most popular TV and movies tend to show an idealized version of reality.
I can't imagine that because I was raised here, that's why I'm asking. I saw plenty of poor people in real life and in popular movies; when I see American movies, it looks like home to me, it's where I grew up.
You might want to look into the immigration procedure here in Japan first. The people are great; almost all that I've met are fine with foreigners. But not so much the government and companies. You need a fair amount of patience to make it here (especially in the work place), unless you already have a contact. Good luck.
I was referring to residence, being able to live and work legally. Although I don't have any sources, I've heard of a few people who have become citizens. I don't believe it's impossible, just very difficult. Permanent residence on the other hand isn't rare at all.
As a legal immigrant American citizen living in Elk Grove California, let me be the first to say "duh". Movies are a fantasy world. Before I moved to the US, I saw Dangerous Minds and thought all kids in all schools carried guns with them. Of course, this wasn't reality when I moved here.
America has her faults but you really shouldn't discount her beauty based on the news and it's mismatch to movies.
"Hollywood is destroying little guys' lifes for downloading a bunch of songs" - technically they've only sued a few people... and really, people shouldn't be stealing music anymore with songs available for 99cents now.
"insane financial schemes" - ya, there are a few really ethically challenged people who are smart enough to take advantage of others in America. But really, there are a lot of really fantastic people here as well. My business partner is someone I would be comfortable giving a blank check. I've accidentally forgotten my iPhone at Starbucks a couple times and it was returned both times. The area I live in is very safe (knock on wood.) Our garage door has accidentally been left open twice in the last ten years and we had left for the weekend. The first time nothing happened. The second time, our neighbor stayed up all night to keep watch. True story.
There are a lot of good people and yes, there are some bad people. America is a diverse collection of people. That is her strength.
I don't think the USA killed this dream over the past decade. I'm pretty sure things have always been like this for non-whites in the U.S., it is just that the internet allows one to dispel the propaganda.
Ever since Obama came to power American Visa system got fucked up. I work for a consulting firm and people are denied Visa on arbitrary grounds such as "we are not satisfied with your purpose of visit", "why you need to meet your customer face to face" etc.
Even that is fine but funny thing is that same person is allowed visa for the same purpose when he applied next time :)
American under Obama have started some kind of cheap protectionism.
Do you really think it is related to Obama's administration, or just a general trend of official xenophobia and terrorist mumbo jumbo over the past decade?
I agree it was worded a bit harshly but on the other hand, that dream I had honestly is gone. So it's not hyperbolic, just maybe not worded perfectly I admit.
Some people may understand my initial comment as bashing against the USA. I want to clearly state that I didn't mean that at all. The last sentence was to express that I'm sad to see such things happen and I'll be the first to cheer if the USA can restore what it used to be and I believe it has everything it takes to achieve that.
I share much of your sentiment, possibly for different reasons. I keep hoping for that moment when the country that I thought was going to be the example of how to run a country will find its bearing again and stop the madness.
The potential of the United States is to influence the world from the moral high ground, the last decade have undone the 20 years of building up that image prior to that.
And it will take at least another 20 years (if not more) to fix that.
About 5 years ago I had an opportunity to move to the US, another year ago a fairly well known company wanted to hire me. In both cases I said 'no thanks', in large part due to how the United States has behaved in the recent past.
The potential for greatness is there, but just like with any project execution matters.
There is one sense in which the US has noticably regressed. Back In The Day we wrote on the Statue of Liberty "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Then in the had a big panic about foreign terrorists in the early 1920s[1], which ended up with the US cutting back on immigration by more than an order of magnitude. The recent panic about foreign terrorism certainly isn't helping, either.
I think the best sentiment is that we should go back to how things used to be in areas where we've regressed (immigration, human rights, limits on the power of government, etc.) but stay where we are in areas where we've progressed (racial integration, voting rights, overall prosperity, cleaner industry, etc.).
I think the point is, ethical progress (be it through abolition of slavery or greater tolerance of difference) should lead to a greater positive effect on the status quo.
If other forms of social, economic and political injustice take the place of previous abominations, the net result is a state which appears disinterested in positively affecting its ethical standing on the world stage.
The sentence was a bit tongue in cheek, something that seems to have completely escaped those piling on with their indignant downvotes, as a way of exercising their frustration with the poor state of US immigration policy. "There, downvoted! Now I've done my part to make the world a better place!".
The US has had problems going back to when it was founded, and slaves - black people, mostly - were counted as 3/5ths of a human being. That's a sight worse than the stupid airport scanners, or many other modern stupidities in my book. There are plenty of other things to dislike about the place, too, that are not recent.
But plenty of things to like, and every other country has plenty of negatives too, if you look closely.
I disagree with plenty of things in the US, but I'm not so fond of sweeping statements.
Fair enough. The reasons why it rubbed me a bit are (1) I know you're an American living abroad, so at least you've seen both sides of the fence, and (2) I used to think much like the OP and today I won't even go to the USA for business any more. They've managed to eradicate a good part of my respect for the country as a whole as well, and one of the main issues is the way new arrivals are treated by immigration.
How the government treats people that are at its mercy is a pretty good indicator for the state of affairs, and in this respect the USA is not looking too good, to put it mildly.
Slavery was appalling, but nobody was advocating 3/5 as an actual statement about their metaphysical humanity. It was a purely political compromise on the total influence and taxation of the south vs. the north, because they couldn't agree on x + 1/2 y or x + 3/4 y. The proper number for congressional representation should have been zero, not because slaves weren't people but because they weren't permitted to vote.
An interesting factoid. There is no legal way for anyone to just come to US and make it their home country.
Say someone from Africa or South America. They can't simply save enough money, get on a plane, land at JFK and then after 10 years or whatever time become citizens. They would have to be persecuted in a terrible way before being granted asylum, have to marry a US citizen, find a company that would hire them.
I think that is very interesting given that this country was founded on immigrants just hoping on the boat and coming here, either to build a better life or because things got terribly bad where they were.
I personally went through the whole process and it is a fucking mess. I knew how to deal with it, because I dealt with bureaucracy in the old country. I can sense an annoyed low level clerk's power trip coming on before they notice it. Such individual need special treatment. You never want to fall into anyone's cross-hairs, it seems like they would destroy you just because they can.
Also know someone who works for immigration. It is quite a dysfunctional entity. Very inefficient. Lots of internal mistakes, unpaid interns do the job searching through databases and picking people out for violations & deportation. Next time you know someone was picked out -- chances are some kid thought their last name sounded funny and it caught their attention.
If you invest at least $ 1,000,000 in a company, you can get a visa. This gets down to $ 500,000 for some areas. The investment must create or maintain at least 10 jobs.
Many countries have this asset requirement -New Zeeland, for example, Canada. It's nothing new or extra-ordinary. It's sort of insurance against draining the state in the event one were to become non-productive.
This seems pretty different from the Canadian asset requirement [1]. The Canadian asset requirement is meant to ensure that new (skilled worker) immigrants can support themselves (and it's on the order of $10 000. The immigrant keeps this money and can spend it however he likes.
Canada does have something similar to this visa though[2], but the investment is managed by the government.
This asset requirement is not for shopping at the mall and making sure you don't starve. It is to invest. This money has to be spent on investment and creating jobs in US.
> There is no legal way for anyone to just come to US and make it their home country.
Are there countries where this is possible? This is a real question, I'm not snarking---is there some country X where I could just up and say, "I want to move to X" and just go there and make it my permanent residence? (I know that there are some countries that in practice don't enforce their requirements, but I thought all countries had them.)
Every country has their requirements, and to a greater extent they enforce them. However, some countries make it downright impossible for a foreigner to become a resident or a citizen, while others make it exceedingly easy.
For instance, if you wanted to become a permanent resident or a citizen to the Dominican Republic, all you would have to do is get there (via sea or air), go through the motions, submit the paperwork and pay the taxes.
You would start by buying a US$10 tourist card, as a permit to enter the country, which will be approved unless you are obviously wanted by Interpol.
This will give you 60 days, during which you can apply for your provisional resident visa. For the resident visa you will need to provide, aside from the usual forms and tax payments, proof of solvency, defined as about 13k dollars in assets (cash and property) at the current exchange rate, and a letter of sponsorship from any good-faith Dominican citizen with in-country legal residence.
Within the first two months after this visa you can apply for a provisional residency card. About four months after the application, you receive your provisional residency card, which lasts a year. At about the year mark, it does not matter much if it happens before or after, you can apply for your permanent residency card. That last one lasts 3 years and is indefinitely renewable (as long as you do not commit a horrible crime).
After two years of uninterrupted legal residency in the country (i.e. at least six months and one day per year) you can apply for naturalization.
All the while, you are free to engage in productive business from day one. You would be taxed differently, on account of not being a citizen, but you would be allowed to work for a profit. If you happen to aquire assets in-country, there is leeway to have the sponsorship requirements waived.
Legal translations, medical examinations and notary public fees carry the burden of the cost of the process. Taxes will run you up less than $100 in total. The entire process is fairly inexpensive and could probably be done with less than $1000 dollars.
I was under the impression that before people used to just get on a ship and sail to America. Land on Ellis Island, get processed and move on to build a new life in US. Isn't that true?
Largely. Two things killed that off -- the jet age (meaning that travelling to another continent is now easy) and the greater connection of the third world to the first world.
Open borders for a rich country just aren't practical any more, if they want to remain a rich country. Like osmosis, open borders mean that people will flow from countries crappier than the US to the US until the US ceases to be less crappy than any other country.
I have a Tier 1 in the UK (btw- it no longer exists) and basically allowed me to make the UK my home with no job here. (I have a job) The major prerequisites were basically that English was my mother tongue, I made a certain amount of money, and/or had an advanced degree. It's more or less a way of saying "Are you going to create jobs here?" turns out I am, but doesn't necessarily mean that anyone with the prereqs checked off has the same intentions. I could theoretically have moved here and become an independent contracter.
As I understand it, its much easier in many countries to be part of their "skilled worker" areas than the US. It usually takes working for a large corporation to get a H-1B visa.
As an American citizen I feel like I can move to any country in the world. I mean any country should want me to move to theirs right? /snark
While I was studying in the UK I met several Latin Americans who told me were living there as good as they could until 10 years (I think, maybe less) have passed. It seems after you are there (in any way) for 10 years, you can somehow claim the residency.
The straight facts may be different, but that was the general idea of what I understood.
The problem with this statement is what is meant by "just come" to the country. I personally don't think that any immigration process should cater to the serendipitous. It's a legal process and most modern countries have processes in place where if you say "I want to move to X" and start the legal process to move to X in your own country, then yes, you can go there and live there if you meet the given requirements. Are there any countries without any requirements for new immigrants (money in the bank, job offer, etc) so that anyone regardless of status can just come? That I don't know. In my experience the barriers are always money, time, patience, and background. Usually in that order.
> The problem with this statement is what is meant by "just come" to the country.
But it used to, and as I've mentioned in other posts here, that is what US propaganda is selling -- we are so good because we are a nation of immigrants and we like to tell stories about our grand-grand fathers jumping on the boat to America and so on.
So it is strange that America ended up with a draconian immigration process.
Not blaming Japan, or other countries, they never claimed to be "melting pots" or anything like at. So this is mainly a jab at the propaganda vs reality.
Look at it from another point -- globalization. It is an interesting word. It is presented as being cooperation between countries and companies. Very nice indeed, except that you'd think it also means opening borders more and letting globalization spreading down to the individual level. For example US companies flood the market in South America with cheap corn and chicken, killing off small farmers, but when those farmers want to jump across the border to find jobs picking lettuce in Alabama, they are called "illegal aliens", they are breaking the law you see. So while for some borders are opening (large corporation) for individuals borders and immigration are closing.
> That I don't know. In my experience the barriers are always money, time, patience, and background. Usually in that order.
Wait, but everyone's epic grand-grand-father that came to Ellis Island did have $1M to invest in a US business. And I don't really mind the time. 10 years? - sure! But can I do that in US? Just come and tell them, let me stay here for 10 years, then give me a passport.
As sovereign, countries can change their policies --as Western Europe did after WWII to attract a workforce to rebuild --and in the 70s once that workforce was no longer necessary.
Every country has a carrying capacity --the limits can be economic, resource-bound, land-bound, political, etc. Why would the US be any different?
The Statue of Liberty is a statue expressing an ideal albeit a bit troubling in that it assumes a world of poor huddled masses --but it's not a national policy.
In Canada for instance that can get really funny, where applying from within Canada for a European is only possible by applying in the United States (Buffalo, for instance).
Within Canada there is no office that can deal with your application.
It is not an inside vs outside, it is that they have no legal way to simply apply and get accepted, just because you want to live here. And that is fascinating in light of this being a nation of immigrants.
You'd have to fit into one of the categories -- gifted, company wants to hire you, married a citizen, have lots of money & investing in US, ...
And even E-2 is not just anyone -- it is for rich people. Even the minimum amount quoted $50,000 is considered enormous by most of almost 7 billion people living in the world.
It might be a substantial amount, but it is a legal way to live in the US. So your factoid while interesting is not exactly accurate.
Also, to put the $50K in perspective - Canadian permanent resident visa has a requirement of showing $10K in available funds, and there is a metric ton of such visas getting granted every year. $50K is not far off.
So is marrying a citizen or getting an H-1. They are legal. Read my comment, I mean someone from any part of the world, just getting enough money for a plane ticket, getting on a plane or boat, landing in NY and eventually becoming a citizen of US. No need to marry anyone, getting any company to sponsor you, no "gifted" abilities, no need for $50K, no need to have been raped and mutilated by militias and so on. That was my point. Sorry for not being clear enough.
(also $50K is not for personal expenses, this money have to be proven to be used in US economy as a direct investment. Not just showing that you have $50K to spend on shopping at the mall).
Ok, got it. In that case, and with a possible exception of EU zone, there are no countries that allow doing what you described. For example, being a citizen of Canada I can travel almost everywhere w/o visas, but I cannot just fly to Italy or Mongolia or Japan and get settled to live and work. Nor would I be able to get a work-enabling visa easily. In other words the USA is not an exception, there is nothing unique about their free settlement restrictions.
The difference, is that US (and Canada I guess), unlike many other countries was founded on immigration and prides itself with that fact ("melting pot, yada yada.."). However it ended up as a country with one of the most complicated and difficult immigration systems in the world.
I suppose the expectation is that unless you are escaping imminent danger (refugee status) or joining a loved one (marriage), your decision to change your home is a calculated move - and the gov't gives a similarly calculated go-ahead. In other words, you are describing a niche of "I am OK now, and would like to join you", and the government responds with "we are OK now, so what will you bring along?".
Not making a judgment about the ethical conclusions of that, though.
Just one condition. H1B's would be given out only in areas where there's a skill shortage in US. IT jobs are always on the list and that's why H1B's are easily given out for IT. However for other industries, say agriculture, or most factory work, it's impossible to take the H1B route.
You are right. I said it because I am not an immigration specialist (apart from having navigated the system myself and know people who for for it). So it is possible that I am wrong. I did not go and research the laws in depth before posting. It is just what I heard from others.
The E-2 also involves a catch-22 : To show that you're serious about building a business, they require you to show that you have (for instance) a commercial rental lined up. Other things (such as potential employees, letters of intent, bank accounts, LLC incorporation and other strong indications that the business will be viable) are also important.
However, prior to getting the visa, you can't do business in the USA : So it's pretty tough to get all this done and stay strictly within the law (a B-2 visa should be for a business outside the States, for instance).
What's more, when it comes to renew the E-2, you are forced to have an interview (after submitting a whole lot of documentation) in the Embassy in your home nation : And the Embassies won't give any firm guidelines about the visa turn-around period, so that you're left in limbo (away from the US) until the magic envelope with your visa'd Passport inside drops through the letterbox.
FWIW, once at the Embassy, the official there was pretty understanding of the hustle required of an entrepreneur, and was pretty friendly once they saw that the reality matched the intent of the visa. The documentation exists mainly for rejection purposes, IMHO.
Is that surprising or peculiar to the USA? Is it easy to become a citizen of Japan, or Germany? It is a general pattern that highly desirable destinations to live eventually fill up (by some metric chosen by the insiders) and close borders or are made undesirable.
Germany and Japan don't spew propaganda about them being built by immigrants or being a melting pot or something like that. US is, while at the same time having draconian immigration policies. I think that disconnect is interesting.
US immigration sucks. What bugs me most is that the US is founded on immigrants, so it's basically the descendents of one group of immigrants telling those 'late to the party' that they can't enter, or in this case that they have to leave.
To do this to someone that has been there for a lifetime and then some is ridiculous.
Too many lives have already been wrecked to satisfy little minds and to get stamps on pieces of paper.
Immigrants like these are the ones a country should hope to receive, not to turn away at some arbitrary future date for bureaucratic reasons only.
I hate to say it but from a brief reading of the information, it sounds like their asylum was first denied back in 1997, and they've been fighting it ever since. They certainly have the right to fight it, but it's been an uphill battle for almost 15 years, so the outcome certainly doesn't seem like a surprise.
The person is obviously a great entrepreneur, he probably should have just left on his own accord instead of fighting it to the point where he's thrown in jail.
The ridiculous thing is that he's in the US, paying his taxes, creating income, etc.... why throw him out? I suppose it's because he applied for asylum that was denied, and they are throwing him out to prove a point, but the entire thing is just counterproductive to what we want in this country.
The point is there are rules. To come to the US you can either:
1) Apply to INS, wait in line, enter the lottery and follow the law.
2) Hop on a plane and hope they don't catch you.
He chose route 2, and is now paying the consequences. Just because he's an entrepreneur doesn't give him any more right to be here then any other would be immigrant, and it certainly doesn't give him the right to jump the line
I agree there are rules, and rules need to be followed. I immigrated to the US as well, and went through a lot of troubles to immigrate legally and successfully, so I very much do not like the idea of people trying to skip the line.
That being said, in the 20 years since he's been here, presumably legally since he was legally allowed to stay while fighting his case, he's made a good life for himself and his family, and they appear to be productive members of society.
If it were me, I probably would have denied the asylum application, but given his entrepreneurial skills, I would have allowed him to apply on an investor's visa and let him stay during the process. The problem is that it took 20 years for the case to go through, which allowed them to create a good argument to stay in the US by being productive members of society. If they sped up the process, this wouldn't have even been an issue.
In the end, aren't these people what we want from immigrants? It's ridiculous how politicians don't try to do very much about illegal immigration because it's so pervasive, but when they find a productive member of society who is trying to immigrate, they throw him in jail because he has revealed himself.
Maybe, but you can't complain if you choose to disobey the rules and they catch you.
Especially when the rules are just "dumb" rather than "immoral". That is to say, the United States is morally entitled to set rules about who can and can't stay in their country, and the rules at the moment are quite dumb.
No, he didn't. He was legally in the country and he applied for asylum before his authorisation expired. It was all above-board, though that doesn't mean he gets to stay since the asylum application was eventually declined.
ecopoesis, there are laws and then there is the interpretation of those laws, right? you don't have to be lawyer to see that and i am not one. because there exists a law does not mean it is automatically just and 'right'. laws get changed all the time and examples as this are a good reason to re-evaluate their 'correctness' and discuss in a broader social context the changes that are required.
It really doesn't matter if the law is right, what matters is the fairness in enforcement. In this case, he could followed the law, waited his turn and come to the US. Instead, he came to the US on an exchange visa, then stayed illegally when it expired. He claimed asylum, but after investigation, the INS/ICE found that he wasn't being persecuted. The US has even told him what he needed to do to become legal, he chose not too.
He's tried for twenty years find loopholes in US law because he didn't want to wait his turn with other would be immigrants.
So while US immigration law may be messed up, he's messing up far more by trying to cheat his way in.
Much as I appreciate rules fetishism, this is the sort of view that screws up my country.
Look, elsewhere we've seen the wide variety of visas aimed at the "rich", "investors", and "job creators". So, clearly, enforcement isn't uniform across people who are immigrants.
Moreover, in your presumably simple moral system, any law regardless of how unfair in specification is fine so long as the implementation is uniform.
(note here I'm interpreting "fairness in enforcement" to mean uniform, as if we actually take into account "fairness" in the conventional sense your own statement is reduced to uselessness... and I'd rather not believe HN is frequented by the sort of drooling pedantic imbecile that would be necessary to make such a claim)
This being the case, you apparently would have no issue with a law that requires police officers to beat twelve citizens every day, provided they aren't biased in their selection?
"By coincidence, Frontline this week is broadcasting a feature, ‘Lost in Detention’, outlining the increasingly aggressive measures to deport immigrants. The key clip begins at the 17-minute mark outlining the arbitrary goal of 400,000 deportations, including “Non-criminal removals”. "
A non-criminal removal is simply removing someone from the country that has no criminal record and is an 'alien'.
As soon as you commit a crime (and are convicted) you are subject to a criminal removal. The main issue seems to be that criminal removals are procedurally expensive, they take a lot longer and cost more dollars than a non-criminal removal. Having appealed or not is not really a factor here because some people that let their visa expire never went through the appeals process, they just disappeared underground or were forgotten for a long long time. Technically they have no right to be where they are, in practice they're just like everybody else minus the right to vote and the right to social security, and possibly health care issues.
In order to boost the numbers the agencies decided that non-criminal removals are the low hanging fruit that they can use to boost their numbers significantly while cutting costs. After all, it's a lot easier to pick up a hard working guy/girl and their family than it is to go after someone that is aware he's being looked for.
In plenty of cases these people are not just productive members of society, but they also have had children in the long time since they landed and the present, which rips these families apart.
This is the most stunning example of short-sighted behavior by officials that I've ever seen because they effectively shifted their priorities from removing undesirables to removing their polar opposites, the productive, if possibly undocumented members of society.
What is sad is that it takes high profile cases such as these to bring this strategy to light, for every well connected person that comes up in this dragnet of stupidity there are 100's if not 1000's of nobodies that are just as important to the functioning of society and whose lives and well being are not worth less than any other persons.
Non-criminal removal is for people who are being deported after an appeals process. Basically they petitioned for a change of visa status which was denied and eventually all their appeals were turned down.
Key is that because they were following the legal appeal channel, they were at no point in the country illegally.
So by ramping up non-criminal removals, does that mean they are actively trying to reject more appeals just to meet quotas of people they must deport (as opposed to rejecting or accepting them on the merits of the case)?
It seems clear to me that at this point he is an economic migrant, rather than a refugee; and as that was the basis of his initial plea to stay (i.e. he was seeking asylum from persecution), the generally brutal machinery of bureaucracy is ejecting him from the country. (Apparently, credible death threats don't constitute sufficient grounds for asylum. But I don't think he is credibly at risk, even of that.)
It's very harsh on him and his wife, uprooting them from their community, etc., but on the other hand he ought to have little difficulty finding work and living anywhere he chooses in the EU.
Well, no, credible death threats aren't sufficient grounds - they would have to show that not only are the death threats credible, but that the government is purposefully not protecting him from the threats.
I can understand that he feel's the US is his home and he shouldn't have to leave, but he's basically been trying to play the system for 20 years. He was told what he had to do to get a visa legally, but he wasn't willing to do so.
It is the system that allows you to play the system for 20 years. If the process were more clear cut and less slow then I'd agree with you but after some reasonable period of time (say 5 years) has passed and someone has proven to be a productive member of society it is in everybody's interest to maintain the status quo.
People have come to the US in their 40's and have died of old age waiting for their paperwork in cases where everything went A-ok (ditto for Canada), it's no surprise that the negative side is just as slow.
Case not finished in 5 years? Here is your passport.
It's typically not the people that go through this mill that control the speed with which it turns but the government side.
Note that it took more than 4 years before they even had their first hearing.
From the Case Summary:
"Atanas Entchev (“Entchev”) entered the United States in August 1991 as a
nonimmigrant exchange visitor on a J-1 visa. His wife, Mayia Entcheva, and son, Enislav Entchev, entered the United States in 1992 and 1993, respectively. They were authorized to remain in the United States until July 30, 1993. Before their authorization expired, the petitioners applied for asylum. Entchev argued persecution based on his political beliefs in opposition to the Communist party, which ruled Bulgaria until 1989."
So they applied for asylum on political grounds in 1993, because the Communist party was dethroned 4 years earlier. Well...
I'm the son of an immigrant and married one as well, so I'm quite sympathetic....but....he has not explained why his status changed from being legally in the U.S. to some other status....
As long as you are in the process you are there legally.
Weird but that's how it works. Only after your deportation order has been issued and you do not contest it for an X number of days does it become final and then you have to leave.
If you are still in the country past that date you become an illegal and you can be deported. In the meantime you can basically continue with your life. But you are building on quicksand.
I think this man made the mistake of reasoning that he's useful to society so therefore society would welcome him.
Ya I was going to say the same thing... I'm sorry but why would I donate to this without more details? Maybe he did actually do something illegal and isn't articulated here in this article.
I think in this context, "living legally" means you are not Out-of-status by overstaying an I-94, issued to you by the USCIS (fka INS) officer at the point of entry.
I'm an Australian, currently living in the US on a green card via being married to an American. While I sympathize with his plight and I also strongly believe that when you choose to enter a country, you should respect it's laws. He did willingly come to the US and overstay his visa, so therefore broke US immigration laws. Now I don't necessarily agree with the US immigration process, I believe it's rather tough and unfair not to mention a little demeaning and insensitive.
What do you do though, the immigration system doesn't seem to be set up to handle exceptions. Once you make one, you have to grant exceptions to others. It's a tough dilemna, Atanas has been seemingly a constructive member of society, hopefully paying taxes along the way. It would be a shame in this sense to punish such a person.
It should be acknowledged that Australians have a special and easy way for coming to US and getting permanent residency. For example, if an Australian wanted to start a business in US, you are automatically qualified to apply for residency right away.
(My information is based on what an Australian couple told me 5 years ago in the US).
True, Aussies now have the E3 visa which is a work sponsored visa just for Aussies. But I came here years before that happened. I had to convince someone to give me one of the very rare H1B visas just to come over to be with my then girlfriend. We eventually got married and I applied for the greencard.
I'm not sure about auto qualification if you want to start a business. I think you need something like $1M in the bank to prove that you have the resources to start...
I know this is an unpopular opinion but, having worked for the government and as an attorney I think it is always sad when families are deported but it is not outrageous. The laws are the laws and they apply equally to (almost) everybody. When people over stay their visas they have broken the law, there is no getting around that and no amount of hard work, tax paying or community involvement can change that. People are arrested and jailed everyday under inequitable laws (crack/cocaine sentencing discrepancy comes to mind) but the way to fix it isn't to get caught up under that law and complain about it.
It's unfortunate that this man will have to relocate but I feel more sympathy for his son than him.
As much as I sympathise with the guy for going through all this I can't help but think that it's all his own fault.
USA, like many countries, has a strict immigration system in which you must play by the rules and follow the process to become 'legal'. Just living in the country is not enough, you must apply for residency by qualifying in some way.
Unfortunately, it's quite tough to qualify to stay in the US for most people. Skilled immigrant visas are notoriously difficult to attain (there's no simple points system like Australia for example) and so you must look to marriage to a citizen, asylum or the green card lottery. If you think marriage is the easy choice you'd be wrong too.
As someone who is going through the process right now, it can be difficult, expensive, depressing, demeaning (having to prove your relationship is 'real') and downright frustrating but right now that's the way the system works so you must work with the system. This guy obviously didn't and now he's paying the price.
Shame is that this guy is most probably Bulgarian and he holds the burgundy passport, which enables him to do his trade almost all over Europe (except for Belarus, Moldova, etc) without having to deal with any bureaucracy or the 'you dirty outsider' attitude.
I really don't get it what so many people see in the US.
>I really don't get it what so many people see in the US.
1) US and EU economies nearly equal each other in size. [1]
2) You only need one language in the US to reach the entire market.
3) I don't believe for a second there isn't prejudice against outsiders in each individual European country. Wikipedia hosts an article written just about tensions regarding Polish people entering the UK! [2]
I generally agree with the first point, with the difference that the economy growth in Europe has been several times higher during the past decade and that trend will continue. Also the debt problems in Europe are less serious than the ones in the US. Also, EU is not going to grow only within - Croatia is joining in 2013 and after that other countries will follow. So Europe has a much greater potential.
2) Well, i18n is nothing hard these days, at least from a technical perspective, also you could reach certain market types using only English quite well in Europe.
3) Yes, this is true, however these problems are visible only in small parts of certain tiers of society. Shortly, the chances of meeting people who openly display negative sentiments against foreigners are smaller if you run a company consulting about GIS, than if you are a plumber/gas station clerk or whatever.
Also, by "'you dirty outsider' attitude" I meant that attitude being displayed by the government, which is very typical in the US.
For example I am a software developer, who comes from one of the 'new' countries and currently lives in another 'new' one, but I have spent significant time in an Western European country and so far I haven't had a single problem with bureaucracy (and with drugged-out undereducated unemployed youths with too fragile minds as well) at any of these places, which compared to Entchev's case of 'they got my entire family under arrest and ruined the life I have been building for the past 20 years' is a whole world of difference.
Yes, but before that another country has been his home and he has ultimately left it for being slightly harassed during the totalitarian rule. Could you compare some harassment (which unfortunately has been something quite usual during those times) with the arrest of one's entire family and being treated like garbage that has to be taken out?
We have the same issues here in Austria, it always feels backwards when somebody well integrated gets kicked out "because the law is the law". It's also one of the main tools for populist politicians to mine for votes ("Fear!"). Although it might seem to be a complicated issue in the end it's not. It's just plain stupid.
He came to the US on an exchange visa. And then he brought his family. And then his visa expired. And then he applied as a refugee. And clearly he is not a true refugee, he just likes living in the US. And he should have left in 1997 but he's been fighting that order in the courts ever since.
I think it might be an unpopular opinion, but in reading the legal doc, he doesn't have much of a case to stay. He should have been deported 14 years ago. The real tragedy is that it took so long.
I really feel sorry for him and his family.One more victim of the stupid, time-consuming US immigration laws.I completed this immigration ordeal and witnessed many of my friends in immigration limbo.It is an extremely difficult, frustrating and time-consuming experience, not to mention it sucks whatever you earn.
There seems to be some confusion related to his legal status.He entered US legally and applied asylum for him and his family.During this period, they are in legal status. After they apply for asylum, they have no control or information over that process.If the immigration process was fast enough, none of this would have happened.When the immigration rejected their application after a long time, they filed an appeal which was rejected again.Now they have run out of attempts via the asylum option and are being kicked out. I hope they can try some other category.
<rant>
The immigration process, with so many different categories and quotas, is a huge bureaucratic mess. The are still using papers and just recently started using online documents for some processing. It is the second highest profitable government agency minting money out of immigrants. The process can be streamlined and made faster even with the current policies. But who cares about legal immigration anyway? Let those "aliens" stand in line and wait forever. I personally know many friends and families living with constant fear and uncertainty for almost a decade or more.
The policies and rules are just too confusing and inconsistent.Two identical immigrant families can go through completely different process, duration and rules depending on whether a knowledgeable or ignorant immigration agent processing their files.
</rant>
This seems extremely harsh to me. And also stupid not to value this man's contribution to the U.S.
In 2004 I arrived in Spain as an American and found a programming job at the international division of a sizable U.S. company. But everything was under the table, and that company did not want to sponsor a visa for me. But even when I was illegal in Spain I still had access to better free health care than the uninsured do in the U.S.
Fast forward to 2008, I was still living in Spain and had done some great work for a unrelated startup that was purchased by a much larger U.S. company. I was still in Spain illegally, but this major U.S. company on finding out my status was willing to help me out in any way to become legal here.
Spain has something called "Social Normalization for Exceptional Circumstances" which means if you have been in the country for three years illegally and have a company sponsor you, they will give you a work visa. You also have to be integrated in the community and speak the local languages well. So in 2008, this major U.S. company paid a lawyer and helped me through that process, something that I am exceptionally grateful for. During the time I worked for this company, my work helped bring in millions of Euros of contracts to the international division of this company in Spain.
Now in 2011 I still live in Spain, have the freedom to change jobs or work for myself, and after 7 more years I could become a citizen here, on the condition that I am always working and living in Spain during those years. That means 15 years from illegal to full citizen. I doubt I will stay that long, and don't actually plan on becoming a Spanish citizen, but knowing that if I had a family here and have that option is amazing. Now I am happily working for a Spanish university research group, fully legal.
And I have to say, I think it is disgusting to take a man, and especially his son who has lived in the U.S. since the age of two and treat them like criminals when the father has been actively contributing to the U.S. economy in one of the areas that the U.S. excels at. To criminalize this contribution is to spit in the face of all those immigrants who became American and made America what it is today.
And it is also denying the basic human rights of this individual.This clearly violates Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
I strongly believe that 20 years of crime free residence and contribution to a nation deserves citizenship, and if I choose to, that is what I would receive in Spain after starting here illegaly.
Edit: As noted in the comments below, actually this does not violate Article 15 at all. I still stick with my conclusion though.
This clearly violates Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No it doesn't, no-one in this story is being deprived of their nationality. In any case, the prohibition is on arbitrary deprivation, and a 15 year long court battle is not arbitrary.
I agree with your conclusion, but the violation of article 15 is not perfectly clear: the tricky word in clause (2) is the adverb "arbitrarily" - I think it is generally taken to mean that, in the context of the article 15 being about statelessness, nations are obliged to offer a citizenship path to refugees, but otherwise are not obliged to offer a citizenship path to anyone else.
I got this impression from an article I read ages ago, but 5 minutes with Google Scholar did not give me any sources to back this impression up.
Your probably right about that, I don't have any legal expertise. It seems that Article 15 states that each person has a right to a nationality, not to the nationality of the country they are in.
It's fairly common for children of illegal immigrants to be in such "gray areas" where they don't have any nationality.
One of my half-sisters was in such case, she was born in Austria but neither of her parents were Austrian, so she was ruled not to have the right for Austrian citizenship, fortunately Uruguay is not so strict and recognizes foreign-born children of Uruguayans as Uruguayan and finally gave her the nationality.
I had free healthcare, even though I only used it for one or two checkups.
I was enjoying making art and the art scene in Barcelona, at least for the first few years I was here.
The first job was potentially better than what I could get in the U.S. It was my first programming job and I am not a cs major, I have a liberal arts degree which doesn't get you many jobs in the U.S. So it was a professional opportunity for me. I just wanted to live in Spain, and never had issues any serious issues being illegal that really impacted my life. I was very fortunate in that I had a well paid part time job. The biggest inconvenience I suffered was not being able to sign contracts for mobile phones or apartments. Trivial compared to what most illegal immigrants go through.
Now, as I get a bit older (I am 34), and have substantial programming experience, the jobs and opportunities available in the U.S. are looking very attractive. At the moment I stay in Barcelona for personal reasons and a desire to finish the current contract I have with the research group. I do have my eye on moving back to the U.S. next year.
Another funny thing about US immigration law is, that if you are an international student in the USA (on an F1 visa) you are entitled to work only for the university that has issued you this visa. For everything else, you have to use your OPT (Optional Practical Training), which is a pool of twelve months, that you can use to work for somebody else, while holding an F1. I will not dig into details such as the fact that it costs about $400, and it takes ~ 2 months to apply and be allowed to use a chunk of your OPT.
If you are an international student and not on OPT, you cannot legally work full time/part time/do an internship with the startup your friend just launched (or any other company, on this note). You may want to risk spending your months, or doing some other jazz, and then try to figure things out, but as we can see from the case at hand these maneuvers do not work out well for everybody.
As for sponsorship, from the employer's perspective, the whole visa sponsorship application process costs about $10k, which is not little money for a small company.
"Another funny thing about US immigration law is, that if you are an international student in the USA (on an F1 visa) you are entitled to work only for the university that has issued you this visa."
Isn't this all part of the 9/11 hysteria ? I am not sure but I was told that before 2001 you could work part time for any employer you wanted if you came here on a F1.
Flagged, title is misleading. Nowhere does it say anything about quotas. The person claims to have been in the US legally for 18 years, but if you read the lawsuit, it's far from being clear, on the contrary. He has filed appeal after appeal, maybe timely, maybe not.
Immigration lawyers love to to offer asylum because these cases can go for decades and anyone can "participate". It also looks attractive to the prospective immigrant when an alternative would be to go through EB or investment immigration. However, if you are deciding to seek asylum on a lawyer advice you are most likely not qualified. Real refugees don't become refugees voluntarily. They also don't have lawyers.
Yes, it's much easier to claim asylum than go through non-fraudulent immigration. However the consequences of an asylum case falling through are also much harsher.
USA's immigration laws are pretty hilarious when you remember the majority of the population are immigrants themselves who pushed the natives out the way all those years ago. It's a country founded on immigration.
You can say this about all of the Americas, in general. National borders, especially that of the US, are becoming harder and harder to deal with if you're a human being. It seems to be a lot easier if you're a trade good.
Well yeah there is that! I generally find political discussion on immigration wholly distasteful, and often parading itself as xenophobic/racist propaganda.
The whole immigration issue boils down to "we got here first! nah nah ne nah nah!"
People here arguing that the US should accept more immigrants from all over the world because "the US has been built on immigrants" need to get their facts straight:
The "National Origins Formula" was only abolished in 1965. Before 1965, US immigrants were 90+% white.
I'm not arguing a certain side here, but want to point out that those who say "the US has been built on immigrants" might be nostalgic to a past that never existed.
Her fiancee visa was in fact quickly approved, pending an interview at the US consulate in Buenos Aires. We waited and waited, called, had our lawyers call, and the response was always "when the consulate is ready to make an appointment, they will call you." They never called, leaving us in limbo for over a year and saddled with thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Eventually we grew tired of the uncertainty. I moved to Argentina, we got married, and we've lived here ever since.
Argentina is not perfect. But the legal status of foreign residents here is much clearer than in the USA. As the husband of a citizen, permanent residency was automatic provided I didn't have a criminal record in my home country (I don't). I am allowed to vote in municipal elections. And, now as the father of an Argentine citizen, citizenship is also automatic if I want it.
You might think that Argentina can afford to be generous with immigrants because it has nowhere near the load of foreign residents that the USA does, and to an extent that's certainly true. But on the other hand, Argentina has fairly large immigrant communities (from Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia and China), more social welfare services (basic healthcare is free here), and a lot less financial resources than the USA.
Having now lived somewhere else and been on the "other side" of the immigration issue, I feel indignant and outraged when I read about how my country treats non-citizen residents.