Jump to content
Jerald

RAISE act and family sponsorship

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, 

My father is an American citizen. I'm 30, married with children. I know that it is possible for him to sponsor me and my family. My concern is that, as I'm sure you're all aware, the current administration is pushing for a massive immigration overhaul. The RAISE act will eliminate the possibility of being sponsored as an adult. 

My question: since the RAISE act has not yet been passed, and there is a possibility that Democrats and certain Republican senators will vote against it, do you think it is worth it for me to attempt to immigrate via this route? Or do you think it is too late and a waste of money? I could have my application in the mail within the month. 

Finally, does anybody know how long family class sponsorship for adult children generally takes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed legislation is very far from being even debated, never mind passed, and most believe it will not be passed at all.  However, I believe that immigration reform and cutting down (or out) 'chain' immigration - i.e. sponsoring any other than spouse and dependents, will come - one day.

Bear in mind that the last time legislation like this was proposed - i.e. in Obama's days - they also were going to end this category - but the proposal was than everyone in the queue already would be processed - and in fact they would accelerate the process to clear the backlog.

So, definitely worth it to get in the queue.  How long is the queue?  See the monthly issued visa bulletin for the latest status.  Right now (September 2017 bulletin) - they are processing applications in this category (F3) dating from 2005.  So, current wait is about 12 years to reach the front of the queue.  Bear in mind that any children you have could 'age out' by then too if they are already 10 years or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have nothing to lose by making the application. As Malamute says even with new legislation there's a good chance you'd be "grandfathered" in.  I don't understand why you wouldn't make the application, it's a form and a few hundred dollars, sure, but the upside is way bigger than the downside.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malamute said:


So, definitely worth it to get in the queue.  How long is the queue?  See the monthly issued visa bulletin for the latest status.  Right now (September 2017 bulletin) - they are processing applications in this category (F3) dating from 2005.  So, current wait is about 12 years to reach the front of the queue.  

Our F3 priority date was Dec 2008. Hard to believe would still be waiting there for a few years yet if we hadn't won DV!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SJ272 said:

You have nothing to lose by making the application. As Malamute says even with new legislation there's a good chance you'd be "grandfathered" in.  I don't understand why you wouldn't make the application, it's a form and a few hundred dollars, sure, but the upside is way bigger than the downside.

I agree with SJ272 - if you do not get your foot in the door you might never get the open door. Our F3 priority date is Nov 2007 - we have been waiting for the last 11 years. It looks very roughly like 2 years wait for 1 year's progress forward. So I think it will be another 4-5 years before we get to the front of the line

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you should apply!! Get that application in so that the clock can start ticking. Like others have said, even if (that's a huge if) legislation to cancel family immigration gets passed you should be fine as applications that are in the process are usually protected. In the meantime, enter the free-to-enter DV lottery every year (while it lasts) and, who knows, you might get lucky and be in the US sooner than you expect.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, 

Thanks so much for the advice. I appreciate it. 

12 years is much longer than I was expecting, but I think I'll send in the application anyway. Best case scenario, I get a green card at some point. Worst case scenario, I waste a few hundred dollars, which isn't the end of the world. Thanks again!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the usual caveat that this bill might never become law,the latest proposals cancel all those applications in the queue. I think an earlier version proposed canceling all those who had more than a year to wait for their visa numbers.  So the grandfathering concept is up in the air.

https://www.cato.org/blog/house-gop-proposes-largest-restriction-legal-immigrants-1920s

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now the government is barely functioning. The partisan divide is bigger than ever and we are now in another election year with HUGE stakes for both parties in the House and the Senate!

Yes, immigration reform is in the headlines and Congress can see almost nothing else right now, but it’s DACA where the fight is happening. It’s the only reason so much discussion is happening and it is the bargaining chip that both side are going to use to gain leverage, because it is in fact a very popular act with huge support on both sides.

Dems will more than likely give Trump money for a wall to save the Dreamers, but I doubt they’ll vote for anything else that touches on comprehensive immigration reform before the Dreamers have a guaranteed path to citizenship in a straight up separate vote. Which would take DACA off the table when it comes to the rest of immigration reform.

Trump and the GOP were fools to tie immigration reform to spending for the wall along with DACA. If they had tied border security and the wall to the gargantuan defense budget or infrastructure instead, they wold have got it without a fight and then still had DACA as leverage for comprehensive immigration reform! Now they’re going to have to choose between getting a wall and border security spending or getting comprehensive immigration reform in return for DACA and my guess is Trump being Trump, he’ll opt for The Wall because it “sells” better to his base.

This would be a win-win situation for both parties, as the GOP and Trump can go into the mid-terms with another major campaign promise fulfilled and Dems can go in and declare that they saved 800,000 Dreamers.

Also bare in mind that comprehensive immigration reform would also most likely have to include a variety of other aspects like the introduction of truly skill-based visas and priorities to STEM applicants over the current flawed H1B system, along with all kinds popular and unpopular changes to student visas, migrant worker visas and the like. Trump is certainly very vocal about family-based immigration and the DV lottery, but he’s not going to be able to throw out the bath water without the rest of the baby, not with such a divided political process as it is right now.

Dems and Republicans will also be looking to November any day now. The GOP would rather retain their power for 2 more years, than fight an unpopular battle on immigration this year. Dems will want to regain the majority and begin impeachment proceeding as soon as possible. So immigration reform will take a back seat if they can get DACA sorted out in the coming weeks in a straight up vote.

I won’t even get into the potential train wreck that is the Mueller investigation. Which is already neck deep inside Trump’s most inner circle and tightening around the President himself like a python! That could blow up any week now and you can bet, one way or the other, if that happens it will stop all of Congress in its tracks, suck all the oxygen out of the room and become THE number one issue and priority for every member of Congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think while dreamers should be protected I don’t think they should get a path to citizenship or if they do, they should not be allowed to sponsor parents. While I disagree with much of what trump does I do agree that you don’t want to encourage anchor babies. Of course, the easiest way to kill two birds with one stone there is to end chain immigration - if you strip anyone from being able to sponsor parents, then giving citizenship to dreamers is moot. It protects them (and most of them are working, contributing taxes etc) while not encouraging more illegals, to my mind that’s the best outcome.

Any poll shows a vast majority of the population supporting protection for dreamers, I’ve seen numbers from the low 60%s to the high 80s.  By contrast, support for the wall seems largely confined to Trump’s base. And Trump started this whole impasse in the first place by trying to cancel DACA rather than just leaving it be!  If he continues on this current path he’s on, making policy for just his base rather than the country,  it’s certainly going to help the democrats in the midterms...we’ve already started seeing republicans losing “safe” seats in Alabama and Wisconsin, and losing supposedly close ones like Virginia by a landslide, that’s all thanks to him.

No one is fighting for DV and quite frankly I don’t think many people really think chain migration should continue either, it’s been shown that the majority of people coming in this way (especially parents) are lower educated/skilled than either native born Americans or other immigrants (most other immigrants actually are better educated, including DV). A merit based system is long overdue, I just worry about what this administration - who now for example has a non-science person vetting science research grants to make sure research goals “align” with the administration :huh: (Orwell, anyone?) - regards as skills.

Edited by SJ272
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree,  the DV lottery is not going to survive long - it would be an easy bargaining chip for the Democrats to concede,  and there isn't much support there for it to start with, and so too chain migration.  The bringing over of parents and siblings is hard to justify when you look at immigration as a means to benefit the country as well as adult children, when looked at through the lens of what is really in the USA interest.

The future of Dreamers is hard, and heartbreaking, but if they are given a path to citizenship, once citizens they should get exactly the same rights as every citizen when it comes to sponsorship and everything else, even if that means parents (and, to your point, perhaps sponsorship of parents should be replaced by a merit system anyhow, meaning no-one can sponsor them). To apply different rules to dreamers who get citizenship would, in effect, create a class of '2nd class citizens' who had fewer rights than others.  That would be a slippery slope.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, now Trump has whiplashed again and (from saying DACA is probably dead a few days ago in one of his tantrums) has now turned 180 degrees and said he sees a path to citizenship for dreamers!! 

At least, that’s his view for the next 5 seconds :P

 

and yes, I agree you can’t have different types of citizens. Actually that must be unconstitutional. There is absolutely no reason for the US to be so generous with the huge swathe of family ties it allows to reunite. One issue in the revised proposal I have is lowering the minor child age (for immediate relative immigration) from 21 to 18, given that many children in that age group are at college and still being financially supported by parents and often still living at home. Hopefully common sense wins out there.

Edited by SJ272
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure where to post this but I saw this and thought it was interesting ... it’s  linked to chain migration, and also I recall we once had someone here filling in a DS form (I think for Dv) who was upset at having to list stepchildren from an ex-spouse. Well, it turns out that a step parent can actually sponsor a step child from a previous marriage where they have divorced, as long as a couple of conditions are met - that the child was under 18 at the time of the marriage, and that they can show a continuing relationship. I had no idea this kind of thing would be possible, but there you go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I wouldn't have thought it possible but it is.  I suppose this is a good example of the 'problem' with chain immigration - that it is endless.  e.g. if someone sponsors their step-child, that step child can become an LPR and then citizen, and then petition for their parents (including the parent who didn't marry the original sponsor) - who in turn can sponsor their 'new' spouse, any children from subsequent marriages, step children, their own siblings etc, as well as their parents, and so it goes, on and on and on.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malamute said:

Interesting, I wouldn't have thought it possible but it is.  I suppose this is a good example of the 'problem' with chain immigration - that it is endless.  e.g. if someone sponsors their step-child, that step child can become an LPR and then citizen, and then petition for their parents (including the parent who didn't marry the original sponsor) - who in turn can sponsor their 'new' spouse, any children from subsequent marriages, step children, their own siblings etc, as well as their parents, and so it goes, on and on and on.

 

 

Exactly, and the uscis page on it even notes that the stepchild sponsored this way is still allowed to sponsor both natural parents!

Definitely does show why they insist on all children under 21 even step of divorced spouse on the DS260.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×