cadenas
Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
|
OK, you are digging deep into the complexities of the quota system here. Basically, your understanding seems approximately right, no country can monopolize the immigration quota. That was actually very ill-conceived. India and China ended up on that list only because they are big countries. Liechtenstein simply isn't likely to send 25,600 immigrants per year! And I agree, the original intent when the system was created in the 1950s was to be quite fair. And it kind of worked for about 20 years. But since then, it has completely utterly melted down to the point that it is completely unworkable, and today greatly promotes illegal immigration.
Your implied question was: do we have a right to make such stupid laws? Yes, absolutely we have the right to make any immigration law we want. But when we make a stupid law, then we have to live with the consequences. We've been throwing an "enforcement" tantrum for 30+ years now. Maybe it's time to learn the lesson and get smarter about what we are doing, instead of doing the same thing over yet another time.
Here is another quirk for you: did you know that until a few years ago, somebody could be perfectly legally in the USA until the day he left - and by the act of leaving the USA could become an illegal immigrant? Sounds absurd, doesn't it? There even was a catch-22 scenario where you could become an illegal immigrant by leaving, AND by not leaving. Yet it was a fairly common occurrence until INS fixed it a few years ago.
BTW, this is not "my site" but rather an official publication from Dept. of State. The explanations are somewhat terse and don't cover all the subtleties, but on the plus side they are written to be understandable to ordinary humans.
There are actually three quotas interacting with each other in an extremely complex way. First of all, let's completely forget about the employment-based system, just to keep it somewhat simple and some semblance of sanity.
First, there is the worldwide quota. That's 226,000.
Second, there is the per-category quota. The law expresses it as a percentage of the overall quota. You can find the actual limits in the visa bulletin, so I won't reprint them here.
Third, there's the per-country quota. That one actually is simple: no more than 25,600 immigrants from any one country per year. At least on the surface. BTW, this is the total for both family and employment-based. And one of the family-based categories (2A) only counts 25% towards the per-country quota. Also, what counts is the country of birth, regardless of the actual nationality. And there are special rules for places that have changed from one country to another (for instance, a Slovak citizen born in the formerly Czechoslovakian city of Prague, now in the Czech Republic, counts as Czech for quota purposes). There are also special rules for dependent places such as Hong Kong or Northern Ireland.
When there are fewer than 25,600 immigrants from a country, the per-country quota really doesn't have any impact. That's why the visa bulletin has a column "All Chargeability Areas except...". It's usually called the worldwide quota. That is simply based on the quota numbers for each individual category.
Only four countries currently reach the per-country quotas. China and India simply are huge countries. When there are a billion people, it's much easier to reach the 25,600 quota than when you are in a tiny country such as Liechtenstein. Mexico is obvious. The Philippines are on the list for a historic reason. Until 1946, the Philippines had a status similar to Puerto Rico or Guam today. Many Filipinos moved to the USA at the time. After the Filipino independence, many families were split between the USA and the Philippines. What we are seeing in the immigration quota is the aftermath of that fact.
Now to answer your points. First of all, I originally glossed over one important detail. For the Family 1st, Family 3rd and Family 4th preference, the sponsor must be a US citizen. For the F2A and F2B categories, the sponsor must have a Green Card.
When Congress created the categories in the 1950s, the numbers actually reflected whom they considered most important - thus the name Priority Category. What Congress had in mind really was quite fair, but it didn't quite work out as intended.
Most important are spouses of US citizens, unmarried minor children of US citizens, and parents of ADULT US citizens. In fact, they are so important that Congress exempted them from the quota. These three groups are called "immediate relatives" and can immigrate regardless of quota (The red tape takes between six months and five years depending on circumstances).
Next important are grown-up children of US citizens. The idea here is that grown-ups can be on their own, so they don't have a pressing need to immigrate. And that would be a reasonable assumption - but Congress wasn't expecting the meltdown of the quota system and that it would lead to an 18 year delay.
Following that is family members of Green Card holders. Green Card holders are "citizens to be" - aren't yet full citizens, so they get less preferential treatment. Again, the assumption would be reasonable if it wasn't for the outcome: approximately one million families are currently waiting to be reunited in this category. Worse, because of a separate provision in immigration law, these spouses aren't even allowed to VISIT the USA. Congress tried to fix this by introducing the Family 2A category, but as you can see from the numbers, it isn't working. By the way, estimates are that about half of these spouses decided that immigrating illegally is a lesser evil than being separated for five to six years.
The third category is married children of US citizens. Makes sense, again.
The final category are brothers and sisters of US citizens. Again, it makes sense to have the priority set this way.
Note the categories that AREN'T on the list: - "Anchor babies". They are a myth just as the unicorn is. Minor children, even US citizens, can't sponsor anybody (once a US citizen child turns 21, he or she can sponsor his parent as an immediate relative.
- Uncles, Aunts, Grandparents, Grandchildren, cousins, ... Sorry, they can't sponsor. Only very close family members can.
- Married children of legal immigrants. At first glance, that seems logical, but in reality it's absurd. It leads to the odd situation that children have to time their weddings around their parent's naturalization date, or they lose their place in line.
There used to be one more category: non-priority immigrants. That's everybody else. When Congress created the quota system, they assumed that the quota would be plenty - when the priority groups where exhausted, then anybody else who wants to come would get a chance.
Well, it didn't work out that way. What sounded good in theory in the 1950s completely and utterly broke down once the quota limit was reached. Today, the delays have little to do with the supposedly desirable priorities. For instance, look at the Family 1st and 2B categories for the Philippines. How come the Filipino child of a US citizen has to wait four years LONGER than the child of a Filipino Green Card holder? BTW, Congress actually addressed this particular problem. I just wish they recognized that all of this - and the surge in illegal immigration - is simply a result of the collapsed legal immigration system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Thank you for the source.
My next question.... an explanation of what these two parts mean to you.
D. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD POINTS
Applicants entitled to immigrant status become documentarily qualified at their own initiative and convenience. By no means has every applicant with a priority date earlier than a prevailing cut-off date been processed for final visa action. On the contrary, a significant amount of demand is received each month for applicants who have priority dates which are significantly earlier than the applicable cut-off dates. In addition, fluctuations in demand can cause cut-off date movement to slow, stop, or even retrogress. Retrogression is particularly possible near the end of the fiscal year as visa issuance approaches the annual limitations.
Per-country limit: The annual per-country limitation of 7% is a cap which visa issuances to any single country may not exceed. Applicants compete for visas primarily on a worldwide basis. The country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries. This limitation is not a quota to which any particular country is entitled, however.
The way im reading this, to me, means that no one or two countries can monopolize all the quotas. Could, say the Philipine applicants be that numerous that their wait is dramatically longer than all the others? I noticed from your site that others are 2006. Does that mean those who applied in 2006 now have their numbers?
*NOTE: For April, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 01JAN05. 2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates beginning 01JAN05 and earlier than 01JUN06. (All 2A numbers provided for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
This refers to the children and spouses section...
Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused first preference numbers:
A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.
So, in essence, what i am seeing is the attempt to be fair in distrubiting visa's based on a formula and not on region. I also see the attempt to keep the immediate family together. Brothers and Sisters i do not consider a priority, and it seems, neither does the government.
My question to you, at this point, is do you see visas and citizenship as a right or a priveledge?
< Message edited by cadenas -- 4/30/2010 10:44:16 AM >
|
RE: GOP candidate’s ‘microchip an illegal’ commen... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread