Children being bussed across border illegally. Heard of this?

[J-rap]

You are aware that it's far more difficult (and often impossible) to do this sort of thing legally now, right?  And it's even more difficult when one comes from "certain" countries.

 

 

You're telling me!  I think a lot of people are really shocked.  My daughter is married to a young man from Central America.  They live there.  He has a good job at a bank.  He and his mother together own property there.  His father is a government official.  He has a savings account with money in it.  He paid over $200, three times, to stand in a long (all day) line at the U.S. Embassy there in order to attempt to get a visa to just VISIT here for one week.  They didn't even look at any of his papers that he brought;  they just rudely told him no.  Finally, after trying for TWO YEARS, he was finally granted a visa just to visit.  My daughter had quickly pushed her way into the private interview room with him and (politely  :)) demanded that he be allowed in the U.S. with her to visit her family for one week.  (The other times she had to wait in the lobby because technically she was not allowed in the interview room.)  She thought that if they could actually meet his U.S. wife and see that she was an intelligent young woman they would finally give him the visa.  He got the visa that day.  We were all so, so happy when he was allowed to visit us.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it will be when he tries to get a residence visa to actually live and work here!  They are in the process of hiring an attorney, but the process will probably take years.

[creekland]

You're telling me!  I think a lot of people are really shocked.  My daughter is married to a young man from Central America.  They live there.  He has a good job at a bank.  He and his mother together own property there.  His father is a government official.  He has a savings account with money in it.  He paid over $200, three times, to stand in a long (all day) line at the U.S. Embassy there in order to attempt to get a visa to just VISIT here for one week.  They didn't even look at any of his papers that he brought;  they just rudely told him no.  Finally, after trying for TWO YEARS, he was finally granted a visa just to visit.  My daughter had quickly pushed her way into the private interview room with him and (politely  :)) demanded that he be allowed in the U.S. with her to visit her family for one week.  (The other times she had to wait in the lobby because technically she was not allowed in the interview room.)  She thought that if they could actually meet his U.S. wife and see that she was an intelligent young woman they would finally give him the visa.  He got the visa that day.  We were all so, so happy when he was allowed to visit us.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it will be when he tries to get a residence visa to actually live and work here!  They are in the process of hiring an attorney, but the process will probably take years.

 

I hit the "like" button, but to be honest, I'm sad and ashamed that it takes so much... esp for our country that was essentially built with immigrants from all over.  How quickly we forget - or become possessive - calling all this "ours."

[Rosie_0801]

This will never end unless we get ruthless,

 

I'm not sure how ruthless a country needs to be. A certain over sized island which shall remain nameless is doing its best and still hasn't managed it.

[Valley Girl]

I admit I really don't understand the notion that we're somehow being "possessive" and selfish if we don't want an open door policy, everybody come and the heck with the consequences for us as a nation. Times have changed. It's a very different world. While I don't think anyone here has explicitly said no-limits immigration is the way to go, there seems to be an undercurrent that it's terrible to want to restrict who can come into any country. Our immigration policy clearly needs an overhaul. The process is ridiculously expensive, cumbersome, and arbitrary. People in other countries are suffering with crime and poverty. But governments do have an obligation to their own citizens first--and that includes making rules about who can and who cannot enter. We can make it more equitable certainly and provide opportunities that are mutually beneficial. But we can't fix the problems elsewhere by creating a mess here. I think the posters who are looking at ways to help people in their own countries have it right.

[FaithManor]

I'm not sure how ruthless a country needs to be. A certain over sized island which shall remain nameless is doing its best and still hasn't managed it.

I know... I'm not in favor. Really...my follow up to that was I hope that is NOT the solution this country goes for because the violation of my conscience as a citizen would be so abhorrent that I don't know what I would do.

[chiguirre]

I can't imagine how difficult it will be when he tries to get a residence visa to actually live and work here!  They are in the process of hiring an attorney, but the process will probably take years.

Our experience was quite different. Both times dh got a green card, it was a relatively short process if you had your paperwork in order. IMHO, they focus on your financial resources. If you show them the money, you get your immigration packet very quickly with no hassle. The second time dh applied was in the middle of a crisis and we really needed to move immediately. We were treated less than courteously until the part of the process where they look at your financial statements. At that point, we were ushered in to an office and we were done in less than an hour and treated very kindly. I don't like what that says about our national priorities even though we benefitted from this unspoken policy.

[Murphy101]

I admit I really don't understand the notion that we're somehow being "possessive" and selfish if we don't want an open door policy, everybody come and the heck with the consequences for us as a nation. Times have changed. It's a very different world. While I don't think anyone here has explicitly said no-limits immigration is the way to go, there seems to be an undercurrent that it's terrible to want to restrict who can come into any country. Our immigration policy clearly needs an overhaul. The process is ridiculously expensive, cumbersome, and arbitrary. People in other countries are suffering with crime and poverty. But governments do have an obligation to their own citizens first--and that includes making rules about who can and who cannot enter. We can make it more equitable certainly and provide opportunities that are mutually beneficial. But we can't fix the problems elsewhere by creating a mess here. I think the posters who are looking at ways to help people in their own countries have it right.

Yes. It's a fine line. Someone was talking on NPR this morning about how she thinks it's great we want to help these kids but we just cut foodstamps for our own needy citizens due to budget cuts. Are we going to keep cutting them to find the $3.7 BILLION that Obama is asking for for this South American kids and if not, where will that money come from?

 

The guy talked about how her concerns are valid and Blahblahblah but he didn't answer the question. Where is that $3.7 going to come from? I don't think it makes us heartless cold whatsits to demand an answer to that question before okaying that expense. Especially since thanks to our corrupted system, I'm pretty sure it will hit Average Joe a hell of a lot harder than 6Figure Income Joe. Also, what if he doesn't get the money approved? What are the options then?

 

Disclaimer:

I have no problem with any Joe making 6 figures or 10 figures. I do have a problem with people acting like a 1% increase in income loss via fees and taxes is an equal burden to all Joes. It just isn't and it's unfair and unkind to call those Joes who worry about it heartless or cold.

[TeacherZee]

You rock for pointing this out, Caroline!

 

Labeling these children as, "illegals" makes it easier to whip the masses into a hatred frenzy.

 

This is the point I was trying to make several pages a ago :)

[Murphy101]

Agree with it or not, but it means we want to accept people into the country who will be contributors into the system and not a drain on it.

This is true and I think anyone with sense would agree it is usually the best thing too.

 

Everyone wants to help the poor, but no one wants to live or work in their neighborhoods. Including them.

 

No one wants to see more tent or cardboard cities in their towns and few areas can afford to build and give away genuine homes to people who don't have jobs to pay for it. (And of course there's the argument that those who could should maybe do so for citizens first.)

 

We keep talking about these kids, but many of these kids are not preschoolers. They are teens. And it is very possible they will age out of the current slow as molasses system. With no job. Little to no education even if they can graduate via the already mediocre public system. And then what do we do with them?

 

These aren't heartless questions. They are very valid concerns of communities with already limited funds and resources.

 

Yes. Let's help them. Let's not cut off our ability to help ourselves to do it.

 

And yes, there is a mindset problem. I said it once, I'll say it again.

 

How do we convince a nation that doesn't want to financially and materially sacrifice to have more of their own children to do so for the children of another nation?

 

That's a rough thing. We have a nation of people deciding they don't want to rearrange their lives or finances for a second child, much less a third, and that views poor people having children as stupid and to be discouraged via reducing foodstamps and such. And we expect them to ditch all that attitude for the poor children of other nations showing up at their doors?

 

I was chatting with someone else about this and they commented they'd help take in a kid if they lived in a bigger house. Their house is about 500sq ft bigger than mine and they have 2 kids. I noted this and that I could probably take in 4 kids. I could rearrange all the kids in bedrooms so that one whole room would be just those new 4 kids. Their response? "OMG I don't know how you fit your whole family and all those pets in that house, but I just couldn't ask my kids to do that. They would be so upset if I did that and I don't think it'd be fair to make them suffer just so we can feel like we are helping someone else. My kids come first."

 

Humph. It's not that hard and my kids aren't suffering at all tyvm. And my kids would still be coming first. It's not an either or situation necessarily.

 

But the system is set up to encourage that thinking.

 

CPS would never place one more kid with me, much less four more. Because my accommodations wouldn't be deemed sufficient.

[mamakelly]

"CPS would never place one more kid with me, much less four more. Because my accommodations wouldn't be deemed sufficient."

 

A few years ago we very seriously inquired about fostering. Our hearts were open to it, dh makes a good income, we lived in a 4000sqft/5bdrm house.

 

CPS response?

 

No. We aren't allowed. Period. The end.

 

Six kids in a home is the max, including your own. We were already at the limit. In order to take in foster kids, our home would have to be changed into a certified group home, which is a huge nightmare to try to do.

 

Frustrating.

 

Eta: That was the point when we decided to sponsor children through World Vision instead.

 

This must be a regional thing. I know people with more than 6 kids that foster.

 

[FaithManor]

"CPS would never place one more kid with me, much less four more. Because my accommodations wouldn't be deemed sufficient."

 

A few years ago we very seriously inquired about fostering. Our hearts were open to it, dh makes a good income, we lived in a 4000sqft/5bdrm house.

 

CPS response?

 

No. We aren't allowed. Period. The end.

 

Six kids in a home is the max, including your own. We were already at the limit. In order to take in foster kids, our home would have to be changed into a certified group home, which is a huge nightmare to try to do.

 

Frustrating.

 

Eta: That was the point when we decided to sponsor children through World Vision instead.

Us too. Ours is not max kids, but we are on a well. Nevermind we have a reverse osmosis whole house filtration system so our water is safer than the city AND city water is 8 miles away and no money in the county coffers to run pipes down here...you have a well, you cannot foster parent.

 

The stupid thing is, it is the county health department's bias. It's not a state regulation. If we were four miles further east across the county line, we could foster in that county. This is the kind of bureaucratic crap that keeps people from helping. My nephew and his wife, NOT baby or little kid people by any stretch but really great with teens, heard about a boy in their community who was living in a group home after his parents were killed in a car wreck and had no relatives to take him in...4.0 student, 16 years old, hoping to attend GW in D.C. or other competitive school. The kids had all kinds of references, just needed a place to call home and someone to help him finish school, off to college, and on with life. They really wanted to bring this boy home. 2 bed 2bath apartment .... nope, can't foster parent in their county if you live in an apartment.

 

Staggers.the.imagination!

[FaithManor]

This must be a regional thing. I know people with more than 6 kids that foster.

 

Yep, this stuff comes down to county and even township regulations, local health departmen guidelines, and even social worker bias. You can be turned down by a worker with NO regulation violations. Some people never find out why no matter who they ask the department. There is no consistency from one locale to the next.

 

We gave up. Dh told me last night to go ahead and take on sponsorship in Honduras, Guatemala, and Colombia. So we are going to do that. If Michigan takes in some of the refugee children, then we'll see how we can volunteer. At least we can help in some small way. Working through the current bureaucracy is a futile endeavor at the present.

[maize]

You're telling me! I think a lot of people are really shocked. My daughter is married to a young man from Central America. They live there. He has a good job at a bank. He and his mother together own property there. His father is a government official. He has a savings account with money in it. He paid over $200, three times, to stand in a long (all day) line at the U.S. Embassy there in order to attempt to get a visa to just VISIT here for one week. They didn't even look at any of his papers that he brought; they just rudely told him no. Finally, after trying for TWO YEARS, he was finally granted a visa just to visit. My daughter had quickly pushed her way into the private interview room with him and (politely :)) demanded that he be allowed in the U.S. with her to visit her family for one week. (The other times she had to wait in the lobby because technically she was not allowed in the interview room.) She thought that if they could actually meet his U.S. wife and see that she was an intelligent young woman they would finally give him the visa. He got the visa that day. We were all so, so happy when he was allowed to visit us.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it will be when he tries to get a residence visa to actually live and work here! They are in the process of hiring an attorney, but the process will probably take years.

The process is convoluted, expensive, and more than a bit arbitrary. I would love to see our visa granting policies relaxed, especially quotas.

 

In defense of American consular officers, they face a nearly impossible job: sort out from among the thousands of visa applicants those who legitimately qualify for visas according to the strict regulations in place. They have to try to differentiate between valid and falsified or stolen documents, judge the truthfulness of a person's intent (is he really just going to Miami for a week to visit his brother, or is he planning to stay permanently? Is she going to visit her sick mother or is she a drug runner smuggling cocaine into the country?) Threats against consular officers and their families are not uncommon. Attempted bribes are even more frequent.

 

Now for a bit of humor: a fellow I know was a consular officer in a Central American country. A favorite story he shares involved one wiry little fellow who came in for a visa interview, claiming he needed to pass through the US on his way to Canada for an international arm wrestling competition. The consular officer looks at this little guy in front of him and thinks no way is he an arm wrestling champion. So he challenged him to a match: invited him into the office ( interviews were normally conducted through bullet proof glass) and set up for an arm wrestling competition. The officer was a big burly fellow, played football in high school, probably outweighed the other guy by a hundred pounds, thought he was going to show the little dude up big time. Bet you can guess the ending--the consular officer lost the match with all his co-workers looking on. The guy got his visa.

[TranquilMind]

The biggest concern for me is that they are silencing the medical people from sharing what diseases they are finding that are being brought in inadvertently by all these people.    That concerns me, if true. 

Yes, I've heard a ton about it from the radio show I listen to. From a heart perspective: I get it. From a fiscal perspective? It makes no sense at all. From a legal perspective: Again, no sense at all.

 

It's surreal.

 

They have a "camp" with a bunch of kids in OK and a U.S. congressman tried to tour it and was denied access. He was told that he have the chance to tour it in about three weeks. In his own jurisdiction. http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/02/u-s-congressman-blocked-from-entering-child-immigrant-facility/

 

In CA a town in So. Cal. called Murrieta (near San Diego) turned away three buses full of women and kids: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Jul/01/murrieta-border-patrol-migrant-protests/

 

Then the media were told that they weren't allowed to follow the buses. :confused1:  (Having been in the media, they're not used to being told that. Ever. As long as they're not crossing private property.)

 

None of it makes any sense to me. What's sad to me is that I have a friend from India who has tried three times to bring her sister from India to the U.S. and has been denied every time. (Expensive because fees are involved and heartbreaking for my friend.)

 

Alley

 

[Ottakee]

"CPS would never place one more kid with me, much less four more. Because my accommodations wouldn't be deemed sufficient."

 

A few years ago we very seriously inquired about fostering. Our hearts were open to it, dh makes a good income, we lived in a 4000sqft/5bdrm house.

 

CPS response?

 

No. We aren't allowed. Period. The end.

 

Six kids in a home is the max, including your own. We were already at the limit. In order to take in foster kids, our home would have to be changed into a certified group home, which is a huge nightmare to try to do.

 

Frustrating.

 

Eta: That was the point when we decided to sponsor children through World Vision instead.

 

In Michigan now you could foster.  There is a rule of no more than 8 kids here (even if it is 6 by you),,,,,,,,, they do NOT count those that are 18 or older.  Might be worth trying again.

[Frances]

 

And yes, there is a mindset problem. I said it once, I'll say it again.

 

How do we convince a nation that doesn't want to financially and materially sacrifice to have more of their own children to do so for the children of another nation?

 

That's a rough thing. We have a nation of people deciding they don't want to rearrange their lives or finances for a second child, much less a third, and that views poor people having children as stupid and to be discouraged via reducing foodstamps and such. And we expect them to ditch all that attitude for the poor children of other nations showing up at their doors?

 

 

 

I don't think these two things are related at all. We ended up with only one child for a variety of reasons, none of which are because we didn't want to rearrange our lives or finances to have more, and yet we sponsor several children throughout the world and have already contributed money for the current situation through Save the Children. I don't think there's anything noble or morally superior about "sacrificing" to have more children. There's far more to raising a child than having adequate finances, and I think it's wise and prudent when parents consider all aspects of their situation before having another child. Also, there are many ways to contribute to the world and make it better place besides having children.

 

And while I strongly disagree with reducing food stamps or other aid to needy families and would actually prefer a much stronger safety social net, I also think everyone should have easy access to free or very affordable birth control and be provided with information about family planning, so they can make informed decisions about their family size. While some families may manage just fine living at or below the poverty level, research is now showing that the brains of both adults and children can be permanently impacted by living under the stress that often accompanies poverty. 

[Cammie]

But many of us are descendants of people who did come to America under duress and in dire straits, and still managed to do so legally.  My grandmother's family came from Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. They saw the writing on the wall, and were able to escape.  They are of the Mennonite persuasion and while they were able to get out before "it" hit the fan with the Bolshiveks, a lot of their families and friends did not and had to literally run for their lives. There are stories, books, movies made of the harrowing escapes these people made, over icy rivers into China and then they made their way into Canada and the US. Legally. And when they came to the US they didn't expect government help. They worked. They were poor, but they worked.

 

 

I don't understand, are you implying that people are entering the US illegally so that they can do nothing, get welfare, and just sit at home?  Every undocumented worker I have encountered was working LONG hours on Oregon fruit orchards, living in terrible housing and earning a pittance so that they could send that little money home to help their families.  They are poor, and they work hard.  No different than your relatives.  Someone people in this country have been brainwashed into thinking that there is this suspect class of people who really want nothing but to mooch off the government while all the rest of "us" work hard, are upstanding citizens, etc.  And before we go back and someone idealize the histories of our own families we should be familiar with what government aid was available at that time (not much). 

 

Entering the country legally was MUCH easier back then.  That doesn't make anyone's relatives more deserving, more upstanding, more hardworking, more anything than those people trying to enter now.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is true and I think anyone with sense would agree it is usually the best thing too.

 

Everyone wants to help the poor, but no one wants to live or work in their neighborhoods. Including them.

 

No one wants to see more tent or cardboard cities in their towns and few areas can afford to build and give away genuine homes to people who don't have jobs to pay for it. (And of course there's the argument that those who could should maybe do so for citizens first.)

 

We keep talking about these kids, but many of these kids are not preschoolers. They are teens. And it is very possible they will age out of the current slow as molasses system. With no job. Little to no education even if they can graduate via the already mediocre public system. And then what do we do with them?

 

These aren't heartless questions. They are very valid concerns of communities with already limited funds and resources.

 

Yes. Let's help them. Let's not cut off our ability to help ourselves to do it.

 

And yes, there is a mindset problem. I said it once, I'll say it again.

 

How do we convince a nation that doesn't want to financially and materially sacrifice to have more of their own children to do so for the children of another nation?

 

That's a rough thing. We have a nation of people deciding they don't want to rearrange their lives or finances for a second child, much less a third, and that views poor people having children as stupid and to be discouraged via reducing foodstamps and such. And we expect them to ditch all that attitude for the poor children of other nations showing up at their doors?

 

I was chatting with someone else about this and they commented they'd help take in a kid if they lived in a bigger house. Their house is about 500sq ft bigger than mine and they have 2 kids. I noted this and that I could probably take in 4 kids. I could rearrange all the kids in bedrooms so that one whole room would be just those new 4 kids. Their response? "OMG I don't know how you fit your whole family and all those pets in that house, but I just couldn't ask my kids to do that. They would be so upset if I did that and I don't think it'd be fair to make them suffer just so we can feel like we are helping someone else. My kids come first."

 

Humph. It's not that hard and my kids aren't suffering at all tyvm. And my kids would still be coming first. It's not an either or situation necessarily.

 

But the system is set up to encourage that thinking.

 

CPS would never place one more kid with me, much less four more. Because my accommodations wouldn't be deemed sufficient.

 

You can have all the kids you like, but please drop the judgement act for the rest of us.  The number of children someone has is not a moral issue.

 

[Laura Corin]

Our experience was quite different. Both times dh got a green card, it was a relatively short process if you had your paperwork in order. IMHO, they focus on your financial resources. If you show them the money, you get your immigration packet very quickly with no hassle. The second time dh applied was in the middle of a crisis and we really needed to move immediately. We were treated less than courteously until the part of the process where they look at your financial statements. At that point, we were ushered in to an office and we were done in less than an hour and treated very kindly. I don't like what that says about our national priorities even though we benefitted from this unspoken policy.

 

My experience was not based on wealth but on.... well, I'll leave others to define it.

 

We were married in the US (I'm British, Husband is American) when I was there on a visa waiver.  This is not the way one is meant to apply for a Green Card, but various circumstances put us into a corner where that was the only way forward.  Fuller version of story available if anyone wants.

 

Anyway, we arrived for our interview in San Jose California (just making the appointment involved starting to queue at 5am).  We were in a non-soundproofed cubicle, showing our photos, talking about how we met, basically persuading the official that we were a genuine couple.  It was a piece of cake.  He barely looked at the documentation.  After a bit, he said that all that was fine, as it was unlikely that the claim was fraudulent because, the official said to me, 'You have a perfectly good passport already'.  Meanwhile, we could hear the couple in the next booth (they had non-European accents) being aggressively interrogated.

 

At the time, I had no job (no right to work), Husband was working part time (long story), we had very low savings, and he had a large debt to the US tax authorities as well as student loans.  The tax authorities placed a lien on his bank accounts not long afterwards.  So not visibly upstanding and well-heeled prospects.

 

L

[Lanny]

You're telling me!  I think a lot of people are really shocked.  My daughter is married to a young man from Central America.  They live there.  He has a good job at a bank.  He and his mother together own property there.  His father is a government official.  He has a savings account with money in it.  He paid over $200, three times, to stand in a long (all day) line at the U.S. Embassy there in order to attempt to get a visa to just VISIT here for one week.  They didn't even look at any of his papers that he brought;  they just rudely told him no.  Finally, after trying for TWO YEARS, he was finally granted a visa just to visit.  My daughter had quickly pushed her way into the private interview room with him and (politely  :)) demanded that he be allowed in the U.S. with her to visit her family for one week.  (The other times she had to wait in the lobby because technically she was not allowed in the interview room.)  She thought that if they could actually meet his U.S. wife and see that she was an intelligent young woman they would finally give him the visa.  He got the visa that day.  We were all so, so happy when he was allowed to visit us.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it will be when he tries to get a residence visa to actually live and work here!  They are in the process of hiring an attorney, but the process will probably take years.

 

@Jhat I do not want to hijack this thread, but I will try to share with you some things that I believe to the best of my knowledge and belief are true and correct. 

 

Your son in law when applying for a B1/B2 (Tourist/Business visa) was required by U.S. law to qualify for the visa on his own. The U.S. Consul did your DD a *huge* favor by allowing her to be present for the interview. The U.S. Consul is required, by U.S. law, to assume that applicants for temporary Visas to enter the USA will violate the visa, if the visa is issued.  Owning property with his mother is probably not something they would take into consideration for his application and that may have been considered suspicious and negative.  Or, who his Father is. They will not, under normal circumstances, look at any papers any applicant for a B1/B2 visa brings with them to a visa interview. The U.S. Consul has, in the vast majority of cases, made up his or her mind, before the visa applicant appears at the interview window, about the decision, based on the information on the visa application. If the U.S. Consul has any questions for the applicant, he/she will ask the questions, during the visa interview, which here in Colombia can only last a maximum of 2 or 3 minutes, because of the huge number of applicants they process every day. Here, the majority of visa applications are approved.

 

Your DD was incredibly lucky that they allowed her into the visa interview with him. They had no legal obligation to allow her into the U.S. Embassy with him.  My wife's U.S. visa is long expired, and when she goes to apply for a new visa, I will try to get into the embassy (with DD), via the entrance for U.S. Citizens, but they have no legal obligation to allow us in and I have no right to demand that they allow us in.

 

Many years ago, when we had much more income, I made the mistake of going to the U.S. Embassy with a friend who was applying for a B1/B2 visa for herself and her daughter (my "God daughter"). It was our plan, had they been granted visas, that we would pay for a trip for her daughter and that she would pay her own way. Well, as soon as I  began talking to the U.S. Consul on the intercom phone, he demanded to talk with her, directly. Their visa requests were denied.  A few weeks after that, I read that one of the things that is the "kiss of death" for a visa applicant is to be with a U.S. Citizen. It is a huge "red flag" for the Consul doing the interview. She had a lot of papers with her. The Consul had no interest in them. The visa applicant must be able to qualify, on their own, for a B1/B2 visa.

 

I do NOT believe that your daughter and son in law should hire an Immigration attorney to try to get a Spousal visa for him to begin residence in the USA on.  Probably it will take several years, I have no idea about the length of time that is required now.  If your daughter can prove that she can support him in the USA, they will probably approve the visa request.  Many years ago, my wife and I helped 2 women with the paperwork they needed for Fiancee Visas. They did not need to hire an attorney. Both of them had very solid work records and  very clean backgrounds and there were no problems. If my memory is correct, at that time, it took 6 to 12 months, but I believe now it would take much longer. There are a lot of papers required and the paperwork must be  perfect.  You can find Mailing Lists and Forums on the web about Visa application regulations, procedures, suggestions, Immigration attorneys, etc. They will require your daughter's U.S. Income Tax returns (Form 1040, etc.) for the past few years, along with the other documentation they require.

 

Several years ago, I attended a meeting in Cali put on by the U.S. Embassy for U.S. Citizens here. 3 people came from Bogota.. The Consul General (the HEAD guy in the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy), someone from the ACS (American Citizen Services) and the lady who was in charge of the Visa Fraud unit.  They gave us a pretty good picture of the procedures that are followed when people apply for B1/B2 Visas, Student Visas, Fiancee Visas, etc. and the regulations they must comply with in making decisions. They know some of their decisions are wrong, and they try to minimize those and not deny visas to good people, but sometimes that happens. They also know that sometimes they approve visas for bad people and they try to minimize that.

 

In the case of the Spousal visa, I believe that if your daughter can prove that she has the income required by U.S. law to support him in the USA, that they will approve the visa for him. If she does not have the required income, I believe the application will be denied.  I believe that she will need to have been in a good job with a good income (depending on U.S. government regulations which may or may not take into effect the COL where someone lives).  Whether or not they will approve a Spousal Visa for your son, if your DD is in Central America and has no job and no income in the USA I would consider to be problematic. I think it  will depend upon her profession and her income in the USA.

 

My God daughter applied (or actually her father applied for her) for a visa to live in the USA, I think about 2 or 3 years ago. I suspect he is a U.S. Citizen now.  I believe she is still here in Colombia, waiting. Initially, when she wrote to me that she thought it would take about 6 months, I thought that was on the short side. I don't know if they will ever approve her application. It depends on his income and the other obligations he has, for his income. 

 

Interesting to me that they have a private interview room for those visas in that Central American country. Here, hundreds of people arrive in the morning and hundreds arrive in the afternoon. They wait in an open air area and then are called to a window, where the Consul is behind obscured glass, for his/her protection and the applicant talks with the Consul over an intercom phone. 

 

On at least one occasion, I have been in that area of the U.S. Embassy, when the Consul had to call the Security people to remove an applicant whose visa application had been denied from the U.S. Embassy. 

 

Much GL to your DD and her DH.

[Ann.without.an.e]

"CPS would never place one more kid with me, much less four more. Because my accommodations wouldn't be deemed sufficient."

 

A few years ago we very seriously inquired about fostering. Our hearts were open to it, dh makes a good income, we lived in a 4000sqft/5bdrm house.

 

CPS response?

 

No. We aren't allowed. Period. The end.

 

Six kids in a home is the max, including your own. We were already at the limit. In order to take in foster kids, our home would have to be changed into a certified group home, which is a huge nightmare to try to do.

 

Frustrating.

 

Eta: That was the point when we decided to sponsor children through World Vision instead.

 

 

We wanted to adopt through a local foster program, but they said we had to have 3 or fewer children to adopt.  So 4 total kids is the max.  

[Halftime Hope]

Our experience was quite different. Both times dh got a green card, it was a relatively short process if you had your paperwork in order. IMHO, they focus on your financial resources. If you show them the money, you get your immigration packet very quickly with no hassle. The second time dh applied was in the middle of a crisis and we really needed to move immediately. We were treated less than courteously until the part of the process where they look at your financial statements. At that point, we were ushered in to an office and we were done in less than an hour and treated very kindly. I don't like what that says about our national priorities even though we benefitted from this unspoken policy.

 

I have to concur with this.  I don't know what or where jhat's daughter's family's circumstances are or what country/embassy is involved, but I grew up in Honduras and stay in touch with many families there.  Several of the families have children that live in the US, or are married to US citizens, etc.  Members of these extended families--come and go on a frequent basis.  I'm extrapolating, but the process doesn't seem that difficult coming in and out of the US from Honduras.   (And these four families are solidly middle class, not a government official among them to "grease" any wheels, nor huge sums of money for financial collateral.)

 

[Halftime Hope]

Someone mentioned something to the effect that "if we could have stopped the Holocaust, wouldn't we have been willing to take in all those people."  Actually, and incredibly sadly, the answer is no.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

 

The Évian Conference was convened at the initiative of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in July 1938 to respond to the plight of the increasing numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing murderous persecution in Europe by the Nazis—and perhaps he hoped to obtain commitments from some of the invitee nations to accept more refugees, although he took pains to avoid stating that objective plainly. It was true that Roosevelt desired to deflect attention and criticism from his own national policy that severely limited the quota of Jewish refugees admitted to the United States.^[1]

 

For eight days, from July 6 to 15 at Évian-les-Bains, France, representatives from 32 countries and 39 private organizations and some 24 voluntary organizations met and formally discussed the issue among themselves, both orally and in writing.^[2] Golda Meir, the attendee from Palestine, was the only representative of a landed Jewish constituency, but she was not permitted to speak or to participate in the proceedings except as an observer. Some 200 international journalists gathered at Évian to observe and report the conclave.

 

The dispossessed and displaced Jews of Austria and Germany were hopeful that this international conference would lead to acceptance of more refugees and safe haven. "The United States had always been viewed in Europe as champion of freedom and under her powerful influence and following her example, certainly many countries would provide the chance to get out of the German trap. The rescue, a new life seemed in reach."^[3]

 

Hitler responded to the news of the conference by saying essentially that if the other nations would agree to take the Jews, he would help them leave.

The conference proved a failure because both the United States and Britain refused to accept any (substantially) more refugees, and most of the countries at the conference followed suit, the result being that the Jews had no escape and were ultimately subject to what was known as Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". The conference was seen by some as "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy."^[4]

I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships.^[4]

 

 

ETA, I know that's Wikipedia, but it gave a good summary.

 

And this conference, and the policy that resulted from it, are one of the reasons for the establishment of the state of Israel.  The Zionist settlers had been working to establish a legal state, but corporately (as a nascent nation), they had not really gotten much traction until this happened.  This and the Holocaust proved to uninterested Jews around the world that having a national homeland was essential.  It was an ongoing uphill battle that took another 10 years until they had their own reclaimed land and legally recognized nation.

 

[Heather in Neverland]

And this conference, and the policy that resulted from it, are one of the reasons for the establishment of the state of Israel. The Zionist settlers had been working to establish a legal state, but corporately (as a nascent nation), they had not really gotten much traction until this happened. This and the Holocaust proved to uninterested Jews around the world that having a national homeland was essential. It was an ongoing uphill battle that took another 10 years until they had their own reclaimed land and legally recognized nation.

 

Please tell me you're not saying the ends justified the means. I fully support the nation of Israel but I still don't think that this excuses what happened at that conference.

[Halftime Hope]

You are probably incredibly typical.   Thursday, on TV, I saw an elected Judge, in Dallas County, Texas, step up and say that regardless of politics, the people need to help the children who are already in the USA and that in Dallas they have the ability to help and should do so.

 

It would be very nice, to see people in Boston/NYC/Philadelphia/Baltimore/Washington DC/Atlanta/Chicago, and many other large cities, step up to the plate and help the people in the "Border States". 

 

That elected judge is acting unilaterally and without any standing.  (He has no authority to do what he is doing.)  

 

The three proposed housing sites for the children include one in a suburb which was only notified AFTER the renovation work began on the site, and only 12 hours (late at night) before the public press conference naming the sites.  The site in question belongs to the regional independent school district, but because it is within a certain suburb, that city will be responsible for all kinds of city resources that will be consumed by having an influx of kids living at that facility and within the suburb's neighborhood. 

 

The way this is being done is wrong on multiple levels.  At the least, all the parties that will be responsible should have been brought to the table to work out a plan.  Instead, this is being done "imperially."

[Murphy101]

I don't think these two things are related at all. We ended up with only one child for a variety of reasons, none of which are because we didn't want to rearrange our lives or finances to have more,

Then that right there disqualifies your inclusion to what I was saying. Did you read it? I was specific to people doing so NOT for a variety of reasons, but flat out bc they don't want to rearrange their lives or finances.

 

I'm not at all saying everyone should have 10 kids. Most can't whether they want them or not.

 

I'm focusing on a nation that isn't keeping it's replacement numbers for the most part bc people just don't want kids or more than 1. There isn't a genuine poverty issue for the vast majority or them. My comment about "sacrificing" was more sarcastic than factual. For most, one or even two more kids wouldn't toss them into the despair of poverty anywhere near what causes permanent psychological damage.

 

there are many ways to contribute to the world and make it better place besides having children.

I did not say otherwise either.

 

If none of what I said applies to you, then it doesn't apply to you. But yes, sadly, it applies to far to many people.

[Lanny]

That elected judge is acting unilaterally and without any standing.  (He has no authority to do what he is doing.)  

 

The three proposed housing sites for the children include one in a suburb which was only notified AFTER the renovation work began on the site, and only 12 hours (late at night) before the public press conference naming the sites.  The site in question belongs to the regional independent school district, but because it is within a certain suburb, that city will be responsible for all kinds of city resources that will be consumed by having an influx of kids living at that facility and within the suburb's neighborhood. 

 

The way this is being done is wrong on multiple levels.  At the least, all the parties that will be responsible should have been brought to the table to work out a plan.  Instead, this is being done "imperially."

 

I agree that much of what is going on with the UAC (Unaccompanied Alien Children) from Central America is being done "imperially". There seems to be very little, if any transparency.

 

The government agency running this does not seem to permit any oversight from members of Congress or the Press.

 

During the next few months, they anticipate another 20,000 or  30,000 (?) of these people from Central America will enter the USA in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas.

 

Coming in with them are members of MS 13 (I can't recall if that is the correct name of the notorious gang from El Salvador), and SIA (Special Interest Aliens) which may include Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

 

There is a shelter run by volunteers in El Paso, TX. They have helped approximately 2000 people during the past month or so as I recall. The average stay there is 2 or 3 nights and then the people leave El Paso and travel to other cities in the USA. The past 2 or 3 days, there have been flights, each with 140 passengers, taking these people to El Paso.

 

The shelters the U.S. government has, in TX, OK, and NM, are near to their capacity, so where they are going to put all of these people is a  good question.

 

One story I read or watched on TV said that 1/3 of the girls/women have been raped during their journey from Central America to Texas. That is a horrible tragedy, for each of the victims of rape.

 

The easiest part of the journey is the trip across the Rio Grande River. They do that on Jet Ski's or in small boats.

 

This is a horrible situation for the people who are coming from Central America and also for the security of the United States. 

[Halftime Hope]

Please tell me you're not saying the ends justified the means. I fully support the nation of Israel but I still don't think that this excuses what happened at that conference.

 

No, Heather.  I was in NO WAY suggesting that the thinking that went *before* the Evian conference and the policy that came *after* were right.  It was a horrific, despicable, and cowardly episode in the annals of history. 

 

My grandparents lived through that when they had young children of their own.  Years later, when I was a child, they recounted their horror and shame as US citizens, and as children of immigrants, at the stand their country (and many others) had taken.  It was made doubly horrific for them because of their religious beliefs, as Christians who longed for the well-being of the Jewish nation and took seriously the admonition to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem."  The sight of ships crowded with Jewish refugees turned away from port after port made their hearts sick.

 

They had hoped for better humanitarian values from our political leaders, but one has to remember the context--that Roosevelt was an isolationist--as were many at that time after the carnage of WW1. 

 

I'm going to rephrase (and expand) what I said in my post: that this conference (and the results from it) was one of the catalysts that WOKE UP Jewish leadership around the world: that the Zionist movement which had been considered a fringe/radical movement was right, and that the only way to prevent refuges having nowhere to go was for Jews to have their own homeland, a legal place of their own, that would not turn away refugees.  (And I'm only touching on one tiny bit of Zionist beliefs.) 

 

After 1948, as Jews from all nations poured into Israel, it was an ongoing struggle for the fledgling nation to assimilate them and to form them into a new nation with its own identity, but having many opponents has helped that happen.  (And no, I'm not saying that having opposition is a good thing... ;-)  )

[J-rap]

@Jhat I do not want to hijack this thread, but I will try to share with you some things that I believe to the best of my knowledge and belief are true and correct. 

 

Your son in law when applying for a B1/B2 (Tourist/Business visa) was required by U.S. law to qualify for the visa on his own. The U.S. Consul did your DD a *huge* favor by allowing her to be present for the interview. The U.S. Consul is required, by U.S. law, to assume that applicants for temporary Visas to enter the USA will violate the visa, if the visa is issued.  Owning property with his mother is probably not something they would take into consideration for his application and that may have been considered suspicious and negative.  Or, who his Father is. They will not, under normal circumstances, look at any papers any applicant for a B1/B2 visa brings with them to a visa interview. The U.S. Consul has, in the vast majority of cases, made up his or her mind, before the visa applicant appears at the interview window, about the decision, based on the information on the visa application. If the U.S. Consul has any questions for the applicant, he/she will ask the questions, during the visa interview, which here in Colombia can only last a maximum of 2 or 3 minutes, because of the huge number of applicants they process every day. Here, the majority of visa applications are approved.

 

Your DD was incredibly lucky that they allowed her into the visa interview with him. They had no legal obligation to allow her into the U.S. Embassy with him.  My wife's U.S. visa is long expired, and when she goes to apply for a new visa, I will try to get into the embassy (with DD), via the entrance for U.S. Citizens, but they have no legal obligation to allow us in and I have no right to demand that they allow us in.

 

Many years ago, when we had much more income, I made the mistake of going to the U.S. Embassy with a friend who was applying for a B1/B2 visa for herself and her daughter (my "God daughter"). It was our plan, had they been granted visas, that we would pay for a trip for her daughter and that she would pay her own way. Well, as soon as I  began talking to the U.S. Consul on the intercom phone, he demanded to talk with her, directly. Their visa requests were denied.  A few weeks after that, I read that one of the things that is the "kiss of death" for a visa applicant is to be with a U.S. Citizen. It is a huge "red flag" for the Consul doing the interview. She had a lot of papers with her. The Consul had no interest in them. The visa applicant must be able to qualify, on their own, for a B1/B2 visa.

 

I do NOT believe that your daughter and son in law should hire an Immigration attorney to try to get a Spousal visa for him to begin residence in the USA on.  Probably it will take several years, I have no idea about the length of time that is required now.  If your daughter can prove that she can support him in the USA, they will probably approve the visa request.  Many years ago, my wife and I helped 2 women with the paperwork they needed for Fiancee Visas. They did not need to hire an attorney. Both of them had very solid work records and  very clean backgrounds and there were no problems. If my memory is correct, at that time, it took 6 to 12 months, but I believe now it would take much longer. There are a lot of papers required and the paperwork must be  perfect.  You can find Mailing Lists and Forums on the web about Visa application regulations, procedures, suggestions, Immigration attorneys, etc. They will require your daughter's U.S. Income Tax returns (Form 1040, etc.) for the past few years, along with the other documentation they require.

 

Several years ago, I attended a meeting in Cali put on by the U.S. Embassy for U.S. Citizens here. 3 people came from Bogota.. The Consul General (the HEAD guy in the Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy), someone from the ACS (American Citizen Services) and the lady who was in charge of the Visa Fraud unit.  They gave us a pretty good picture of the procedures that are followed when people apply for B1/B2 Visas, Student Visas, Fiancee Visas, etc. and the regulations they must comply with in making decisions. They know some of their decisions are wrong, and they try to minimize those and not deny visas to good people, but sometimes that happens. They also know that sometimes they approve visas for bad people and they try to minimize that.

 

In the case of the Spousal visa, I believe that if your daughter can prove that she has the income required by U.S. law to support him in the USA, that they will approve the visa for him. If she does not have the required income, I believe the application will be denied.  I believe that she will need to have been in a good job with a good income (depending on U.S. government regulations which may or may not take into effect the COL where someone lives).  Whether or not they will approve a Spousal Visa for your son, if your DD is in Central America and has no job and no income in the USA I would consider to be problematic. I think it  will depend upon her profession and her income in the USA.

 

My God daughter applied (or actually her father applied for her) for a visa to live in the USA, I think about 2 or 3 years ago. I suspect he is a U.S. Citizen now.  I believe she is still here in Colombia, waiting. Initially, when she wrote to me that she thought it would take about 6 months, I thought that was on the short side. I don't know if they will ever approve her application. It depends on his income and the other obligations he has, for his income. 

 

Interesting to me that they have a private interview room for those visas in that Central American country. Here, hundreds of people arrive in the morning and hundreds arrive in the afternoon. They wait in an open air area and then are called to a window, where the Consul is behind obscured glass, for his/her protection and the applicant talks with the Consul over an intercom phone. 

 

On at least one occasion, I have been in that area of the U.S. Embassy, when the Consul had to call the Security people to remove an applicant whose visa application had been denied from the U.S. Embassy. 

 

Much GL to your DD and her DH.

 

This is all really interesting and helpful to hear.  Thank you for taking the time to go into such detail and helping explain "the other side."  For some reason, this process is not understood clearly, even to educated people.  Their online sites are confusing and never seem to answer all the questions.  Interesting about how by law they are not allowed to look at papers during the interview.  I'm sure my DD and SIL had no idea, even though I know they have spent hours researching and talking to people on the phone trying to get more info on how to best go about it.  Why is this so unclear?  My DD is a smart young woman.  It should NOT be that difficult to understand the procedure.  Your explanation of owning property with his mother does make sense though, and also, the fact that "just a visit" might mean trying to stay permanently.  That's why my SIL thought that showing proof of his job, his income, his home, and even the fact that my DD is in the middle of getting her degree at a university there, would help them see that he would be returning to his country.

 

Just a few years ago, my DS went through this same thing, only with his Canadian wife.  It still took 1.5 years and was very confusing and difficult.  Several steps needed to be repeated.  She needed to travel hundreds of miles to different parts of Canada for her interview and an approved immigration doctor appt.  She was of course not allowed to even step foot in the U.S. during that period.  My son was determined to not hire an attorney, and did it all on his own.  He has said he would never do it on his own again, and highly recommended that my DD hire an attorney as a result, also given the fact that her husband is from one of "those" countries.

 

Anyway, your explanation was really helpful and clear.  Maybe you should start an online visa questions website.  :)

 

[Halftime Hope]

Oh this is nonsense.  Many of these people came illegally and people coming now work.

 

Only to you, Calandalsmom.  If you are going to assert that many came illegally as though that is the final word, could you cite some primary course statistics, please?  (I'm skeptical of white papers and policy bulletins issued governmental agencies.  LOL!)

 

Your response to the other poster--when her family came legally--and by extension perhaps to my forebears, since I've mentioned them in thread--they also immigrated legally--is simply not the whole story.

 

In the time that these families came, there were no social safety net programs, so they could not be a drain or a burden on the nation.  Except for public school, they could not consume resources like immigrants do now, resources that your children and mine will be paying for in the decades, perhaps even generations to come.  And by and large, it is my understanding that, historically, most immigrants came either as able-bodied (perhaps young) adults, or as families.  Someone could earn and provide for them. Vast numbers of children, traveling alone, did not oceans cross.

 

this situation is different, someone has to foot the bill and to provide for these immigrant children.  They are not able to do so for themselves--we are no longer a society that will allow children to sell papers on streetcorners, or shine shoes, or work in sweatshops.  That is a good thing, but if the youngsters cannot earn their way, they have to be provided for.  When our own systems are already overtaxed, how can this be a good thing?

 

How about those Central American countries getting real and providing for their own?  Mexico is a big country with plenty of room and lots of lovely growing weather, how about they stay there? 

 

Oh wait, that would never happen, because 1) Mexico DEPORTS all illegals, and 2) now it is giving them a 72 hour pass if they are headed north--yeah, that happened last week, as announced in a joint press conference with the presidents of Guatemala and Mexico.  http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/impreso/mexico-y-guatemala-protegeran-a-migrantes-216921.html   Yes, this is real.

 

Ask yourself what the incentive is.  It's because there is work and because the social net bennies are available.  Pretty nice when your child will be schooled, when healthcare is available, when they will be eligible for free or nearly free college tuition, and when the social upheaval is limited to cold stares and discrimination.  Or maybe it won't be when this lifeboat capsizes (other countries start calling in our national debt.)

[Halftime Hope]

triplicate post --weird.  So sorry!

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And this conference, and the policy that resulted from it, are one of the reasons for the establishment of the state of Israel. The Zionist settlers had been working to establish a legal state, but corporately (as a nascent nation), they had not really gotten much traction until this happened. This and the Holocaust proved to uninterested Jews around the world that having a national homeland was essential. It was an ongoing uphill battle that took another 10 years until they had their own reclaimed land and legally recognized nation.

 

Reclaimed land? Stretching that a bit.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Only to you, Calandalsmom. If you are going to assert that many came illegally as though that is the final word, could you cite some primary course statistics, please? (I'm skeptical of white papers and policy bulletins issued governmental agencies. LOL!)

 

Your response to the other poster--when her family came legally--and by extension perhaps to my forebears, since I've mentioned them in thread--they also immigrated legally--is simply not the whole story.

 

In the time that these families came, there were no social safety net programs, so they could not be a drain or a burden on the nation. Except for public school, they could not consume resources like immigrants do now, resources that your children and mine will be paying for in the decades, perhaps even generations to come. And by and large, it is my understanding that, historically, most immigrants came either as able-bodied (perhaps young) adults, or as families. Someone could earn and provide for them. Vast numbers of children, traveling alone, did not oceans cross.

 

this situation is different, someone has to foot the bill and to provide for these immigrant children. They are not able to do so for themselves--we are no longer a society that will allow children to sell papers on streetcorners, or shine shoes, or work in sweatshops. That is a good thing, but if the youngsters cannot earn their way, they have to be provided for. When our own systems are already overtaxed, how can this be a good thing?

 

How about those Central American countries getting real and providing for their own? Mexico is a big country with plenty of room and lots of lovely growing weather, how about they stay there?

 

Oh wait, that would never happen, because 1) Mexico DEPORTS all illegals, and 2) now it is giving them a 72 hour pass if they are headed north--yeah, that happened last week, as announced in a joint press conference with the presidents of Guatemala and Mexico. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/impreso/mexico-y-guatemala-protegeran-a-migrantes-216921.html Yes, this is real.

 

Ask yourself what the incentive is. It's because there is work and because the social net bennies are available. Pretty nice when your child will be schooled, when healthcare is available, when they will be eligible for free or nearly free college tuition, and when the social upheaval is limited to cold stares and discrimination. Or maybe it won't be when this lifeboat capsizes (other countries start calling in our national debt.)

1.) The US holds the vast majority if it's own debt.

2.) The way US debt is issued, no nation can "call in" our debt. They could sell what they own, refuse to by, and other actions that would hurt our debt structure, but they cannot show up at the door demanding immediate payment.

[Halftime Hope]

ETA:  roughly a third of our debt (as of 2011) was owned by foreign and international interests, 26% of that third to China.  http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp#consequences    More data and statistics on that page.

 

 

Well, the national debt is something I know very little about.  How can the US hold its own debt? Do you mean through Treasuries and such?

 

What happens if we default on loans or on servicing loans?  I know it is really bad, but not "how" exactly. 

 

Thanks! :-)

 

1.) The US holds the vast majority if it's own debt.
2.) The way US debt is issued, no nation can "call in" our debt. They could sell what they own, refuse to by, and other actions that would hurt our debt structure, but they cannot show up at the door demanding immediate payment.

[Halftime Hope]

sorry, duplicate post

[Lanny]

This is all really interesting and helpful to hear.  Thank you for taking the time to go into such detail and helping explain "the other side."  For some reason, this process is not understood clearly, even to educated people.  Their online sites are confusing and never seem to answer all the questions.  Interesting about how by law they are not allowed to look at papers during the interview.  I'm sure my DD and SIL had no idea, even though I know they have spent hours researching and talking to people on the phone trying to get more info on how to best go about it.  Why is this so unclear?  My DD is a smart young woman.  It should NOT be that difficult to understand the procedure.  Your explanation of owning property with his mother does make sense though, and also, the fact that "just a visit" might mean trying to stay permanently.  That's why my SIL thought that showing proof of his job, his income, his home, and even the fact that my DD is in the middle of getting her degree at a university there, would help them see that he would be returning to his country.

 

Just a few years ago, my DS went through this same thing, only with his Canadian wife.  It still took 1.5 years and was very confusing and difficult.  Several steps needed to be repeated.  She needed to travel hundreds of miles to different parts of Canada for her interview and an approved immigration doctor appt.  She was of course not allowed to even step foot in the U.S. during that period.  My son was determined to not hire an attorney, and did it all on his own.  He has said he would never do it on his own again, and highly recommended that my DD hire an attorney as a result, also given the fact that her husband is from one of "those" countries.

 

Anyway, your explanation was really helpful and clear.  Maybe you should start an online visa questions website.  :)

 

 

@Jhat  To begin, when I read your suggestion that I start an online visa questions website I was literally LOL.  My knowledge of this is trivial, but I can guarantee you, because I spent some time on them many years ago, that there are some truly outstanding Mailing Lists or web sites about visas and immigration to the USA. Some of them have 1 or 2 immigration attorneys who chime in on some things.  I believe that would be a great way for your DD to spend some of her spare time to get a feel for the issues involved.. 

 

I am not certain about U.S.  law not permitting them to look at papers during an interview for a B1/B2 Visa, but it is my belief they do that rarely, if ever.  For a Fiancee or Spousal Visa, I believe they are very interested in seeing photos and many other things. Many years ago, the first time I came to Colombia, I almost married a woman I met here. Fortunately, we did not get married.  :-) To my astonishment, 1 or 2 years later, I introduced her to someone and he got her a Fiancee Visa and she went to the states and they have been married for many years. I remember that I was getting ready to go out of the country and he called me and he said he needed a letter, immediately, for her visa application. So, I wrote a FAX that I had introduced them and that I had seen them together, etc., and I sent it to him before my trip. 

 

I would like you to know that during the meeting I attended in Cali, where the 3 employees of the Consular section from the U.S. Embassy were, a few years ago, they explained that they know that we (the American residents of Colombia) receive a lot of questions from friends and family and acquaintances about U.S. Visas and we are their first line of communications/defense. The Embassy here is one of the largest and busiest in the world.

 

After your DD spends some time on Mailing Lists/Web Sites about U.S. Visas I think she will be in a much better position to decide whether or not to hire an Immigration Attorney or an Immigration Service.  My gut feeling is that an Immigration Attorney would be overkill and very expensive. However, there are also Immigration Services as I recall from the time I spent looking, many years ago. Probably much less expensive and possibly as effective for the basic procedures.

 

My gut feeling is that your DD is going to have a VERY BIG problem when she provides the U.S. Government copies of her U.S. Income Tax returns for the past 3 to 5 years and that she has the financial stability and the income legally required to support her husband in the USA, for the years that are required for his visa to be approved.  I hope that she will be successful in this effort and that she does not need to move back to the USA without her husband. 

 

I know of one American woman (she was a teacher in the first brick and mortar school DD attended $$$$$) who married another teacher. She took back the ultimate souvenir, a husband, when she completed her contract here and moved back to the USA.

 

If they have a photo album, with dated photos of them together, that will be helpful in the future, during their visa application procedures. 

 

Just to show you that the bureaucracy isn't always on the part of U.S. law, when my wife and I wanted to get married in Colombia, it was a big problem, because I'm a foreigner.  I needed one paper certified by the Colombian Consulate General in Houston, another certified by the Colombian Consulate General in California, etc. And, I needed them all within 30 days, and then I needed them in the Foreign Ministry in Bogota.  We had really given up on getting married in Colombia, until visiting a Notary Public (not at all like a Notary Public in the USA) about something else and we explained our situation to them. They decided that we had been together so long ("living together" in Colombia is legally recognized and protects the woman and any children) that the Notary would marry us and we got married with my wife's family and friends present, instead of somewhere in FL or NJ or NV, where it is so easy to get married.

 

Here's another story from many years ago. The young man who ran the network for our ISP (which was located in an office center near where we lived at that time) wanted to apply for a B1/B2 visa. He was very clean cut and a graduate of the public (best) university in Cali. I think possibly we helped him a little with the visa application form. When he got to the Embassy for his visa appointment, at the first check in, where the applicants for Non Immigrant Visas (like B1/B2, Student, etc.) turn in their Passport and their visa application form, he handed in his stuff and then walked to the next window, where they handed him a form that said his application had been approved. That was his "interview".  I don't think he was able to talk because he was so surprised. 

 

GL to your DD and her DH!

[Halftime Hope]

Reclaimed land? Stretching that a bit.

 

 Yes, reclaimed is a good word on several levels--historically, literally, factually--although perhaps it does some perceived injustice to the many settlers who purchased tracts of land in the early resettlement period in the 19th century, given the connotations we bring to the word today.  Reclaimed is a particularly apt word for the desert land that cultivated and made habitable by Jewish settlers. 

 

You might read some of the history of the Zionist movement, if you'd like.  I did that at one point, since it was an interest of mine many moons ago.

[poppy]

It was the British who 'claimed' Israel as though it was theirs to give away. And then they did.

[Halftime Hope]

It was the British who 'claimed' Israel as though it was theirs to give away. And then they did.

 

And that was a minimum of 40 years after the beginning waves of Jewish immigrants coming to Palestine, depending on which dates one uses.  I know Wikipedia is sketchy at times, but this is short and convenient:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yishuv 

 

Jewish immigration and re-settlement well pre-dated the British mandate.  All in all, the British mandate was a colossal mess, and it proved disastrous for both populations.

[Dana]

Reading Grapes of Wrath today.

The more things change.....

[Lanny]

Only a few of the UAC (Unaccompanied alien children) from Central America are being sent back. Many more will be arriving. There are a huge number of people who need help. I just read the following, in one news article. "They say that the U.S. has so far this year repatriated only 890 of the roughly 55,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America who have been apprehended, a number projected to rise to 90,000 by the end of the year, citing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement statistics."

[[email protected]]

Let's stay on topic, please?

 

And skip the name-calling?

 

Moderator

[Halftime Hope]

Wow, today is probably not the best of all days to introduce Zionism into the conversation. Do you have a clue what's happening in Gaza right now ?

 

Let's go back to talking about productive ways to help these children and young people.

 

I remembered about Kiva as well - you can provide a small interest free loan to a person in another country who is often looking to set up a micro-business to help their families attain a better standard of living. I believe the repayment rates are good.

 

 

That happened about four pages ago and a day or two ago, and it has been part of what several of us have been talking about in the context of the ongoing problem of how to respond to refugees. And yes, I do have a clue; I follow the news. Why would what is happening there stop us from talking about a historical event?  We can have serious conversations in which everyone learns, right?

 

How to help these children and the countries they are from: 

 

1) take the children back unless there is a legitimate asylum concern. 

 

2) Get serious about streamlining the legal immigration process. (Handle the backlog of legal immigrants.)  This will help threatened children, as well, if there is a quick way to get permits when asylum is genuinely needed.  (The simplest way to handle something like this would be through institutions such as the Catholic church, since churches are ubiquitous and generally trusted in Central America. You'd have to have experienced it to really grasp what I mean.  It's nothing like churches in the US.)

 

3) Close the border so there is no profit motive and exploitation in moving people, and so that our country is protected from nefarious border crossers (as opposed to mothers and innocents.)

 

4) In the countries they came from, set up and fund programs for children that are going back and are at risk.  Families can opt to take their children home or to have them in the programs, but the key is to have the program run by local experts.  The local experts can be identified by NGOs and others that are already working in the area.  Set it up so that the program is self-sustaining five years from inception.  The cost is much less than housing and providing for children here.

 

Those are some ideas right off the top. 

 

I would also echo the benefit of funding child help programs already in existence.  My mom used to administer a local program for Children International, scholarships, etc.  (I think that was the organization; it was a long, long time ago.)  It did wonderful things for families in the community, as helping those kids get an education is a gift that keeps on giving.

 

 

 

 

 

[myfunnybunch]

I can't post a link because I'm on the phone, but I googled ABC news and searched their site for care packages to the illegal immigrant children. A quick look showed the Red Cross is helping them, and the sacred heartchurch in McAllen Tx is accepting donations for stuff. I'm sure there's more in the ABC website, but I got more info, more quickly by searching their site than by trying to google for it.

 

Thanks for this. I'd love to see more of this kind of information and discussion. What can we do right now to help the children (and overburdened states/systems) who are here and dealing with this right now?

 

Sponsoring children is a way to help children and families stay together where they are right now. Immigration reform is crucial. And we've got kids who are already here and are caught in a complicated tangle of bureaucratic red tape and the mess that is our immigration policy. Discussing whether or not they *should* be here or how/why they got here is important, but what is immediately crucial is figuring out how to meet their physical and legal needs (at the very least) while they're here.

 

Cat

[idnib]

I remembered about Kiva as well - you can provide a small interest free loan to a person in another country who is often looking to set up a micro-business to help their families attain a better standard of living. I believe the repayment rates are good.

 

I have a good friend who says Kiva is wonderful and who sends quite a bit of money. He was very into women's empowerment through the 1960s-1980s through NOW and other organizations, but once things went global via the internet he did a lot of research and thought Kiva was the best.

[chiguirre]

ETA:  roughly a third of our debt (as of 2011) was owned by foreign and international interests, 26% of that third to China.  http://www.justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp#consequences    More data and statistics on that page.

 

 

Well, the national debt is something I know very little about.  How can the US hold its own debt? Do you mean through Treasuries and such?

 

What happens if we default on loans or on servicing loans?  I know it is really bad, but not "how" exactly. 

 

Thanks! :-)

US debt is issued by the Treasury with different maturities. The long bond is 30 years. A T bill is a year or less. They are all denominated in US dollars. That means that if worse came to worst, we would pay them by issuing currency. We can't default like Argentina for example, because our debt is denominated exclusively in our national currency. Argentina has debt denominated in US$ and doesn't have enough greenbacks on hand to pay. They can't pay this debt in pesos.

 

The only way we can default on our debt is for Congress to expressly refuse to pay (by not raising the debt ceiling).

 

If you can remember back to 2000, there was serious concern that the Treasury would not issue enough debt for the financial system to continue to operate normally because we had a small surplus. US debt instruments are critical to the global financial system because they are risk free and dollar denominated. They serve as the basis for a chunk of the repo market that provides liquidity for banks and shadow banks.

 

I think I've gone off into the thickets a bit by the end. This is a truly fascinating topic and it's essential for understanding much of the economic and political news of recent years. For a fairly easy introduction to financial crises, you might like Stress Test by Tim Geithner. He was the president of the NY Fed and Treasury Secretary for most of the economic meltdown and does a good job explaining the economics without too much jargon.

[La Texican]

Thank you ohdanigirl for explaining that the Mexican military helping the local police does not represent the level of crisis it would have meant in the US. I didn't know it was common practice there. Your answer has made me less concerned than I've been for a couple years, thinking that I'm sitting here watching a modern Civil War brewing that nobody's taking seriously.

 

It's so strange how other cultures see things. I remember a friend telling me about a conversation with her friend from South Africa. She said her mind was changed a little bit. She said her friend was saying her own country was more moral, even with rampant rape, because the women were really communal and not materialistic like they were here. I told my friend I don't see how that makes it a better place at all, but my friend kinda did. So you got other countries with all these tragedies, but many of their citizens still feel their countries are better in so many ways. It's hard for me to think about and understand. I truly feel, no, what you're describing is not better than here. It's hard for me to understand that things are so horrible in a country that so many people would send their kids away, and from what I read up thread, a 1 in 3 chance of being raped on the journey. And then to be told that the citizenry wouldn't jump for joy to become American territories, when our lives sound so better than theirs.

 

There's charts all over the internet saying that our country does send aid to all these various countries, which, what else can you do, if they don't want your "help" they just want you to send money? When I was a kid in school I wondered why troubled countries just didn't send a few of their smartest kids here to college to learn medicine, architecture, and agriculture, then they could go teach their country and it could be fixed. I know now it's not an individuals responsibility to fix their own country like that, and I think now their countries wouldn't let them for various reasons. There goes the childish plan. What's an adult answer? It's not money or knowledge, or, if it is , we can't get enough over "there", or can't afford enough.

 

I'm going to make two posts, even though this one's already too long and disjointed. I know I'm not the only one who doesn't understand these things, and by speaking up before, I learned something new. The next post is because I wanted to know what the peopke whose career it is to figure out these things think about this. Apparently the First Ladies from those other countries have came over here and seen the children. Apparently the US plans to send money to Mexico, and Honduras, and Ecuador to strengthen their boarder security, and to send money for their local police to start youth programs. (Link in next post).

[La Texican]

[PDF]Ambassador Shannon - testimony - Senate Appropriations Committee

 

www.appropriations.senate.gov/.../Shannon%20Testimony%207%2010%2...

 

I got curious enough to look up whose career it is to figure this stuff out and look up what they're saying. I vaguely knew there's consulates and embassies, and international policies, and the president has foreign advisors, and the UN's mission statement is to fix the world.

[Halftime Hope]

US debt is issued by the Treasury with different maturities. The long bond is 30 years. A T bill is a year or less. They are all denominated in US dollars. That means that if worse came to worst, we would pay them by issuing currency. We can't default like Argentina for example, because our debt is denominated exclusively in our national currency. Argentina has debt denominated in US$ and doesn't have enough greenbacks on hand to pay. They can't pay this debt in pesos.

 

The only way we can default on our debt is for Congress to expressly refuse to pay (by not raising the debt ceiling).

 

If you can remember back to 2000, there was serious concern that the Treasury would not issue enough debt for the financial system to continue to operate normally because we had a small surplus. US debt instruments are critical to the global financial system because they are risk free and dollar denominated. They serve as the basis for a chunk of the repo market that provides liquidity for banks and shadow banks.

 

I think I've gone off into the thickets a bit by the end. This is a truly fascinating topic and it's essential for understanding much of the economic and political news of recent years. For a fairly easy introduction to financial crises, you might like Stress Test by Tim Geithner. He was the president of the NY Fed and Treasury Secretary for most of the economic meltdown and does a good job explaining the economics without too much jargon.

 

Thank you, chiguirre!

[La Texican]

http://kctv7.com/michele-bachmann-suggests-labor-camps-for-immigrant-children/

zomg! This lady..she wants to put the kids in camps and raise them to be good Americans by raising them in camps and making them go to school and hold jobs while they're not in school to payfor their own upbringing and learn the American values.

I get that she's probably talking about only the teenage ones. I know that many teenagers have afterschool jobs. I know it's probably better than sending them back, and nobody else can pay for their upbringing. But doesn't this translate to slavery, working for free, to pay off a debt they're not old enough to incur?

 

 

ETA: brought to my attention, this article is parody. I wasn't aware. <blushes>