SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > General Topics > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 30 January 2013, 17:06
EchoFiveMike's Avatar
EchoFiveMike EchoFiveMike is offline
Make a desert and call it peace.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: back home, IVO chicago
Posts: 8,158
BTW, I think we should only allow hot chicks under age 30 to immigrate. S/F....Ken M
__________________
"If you remember nothing else about what I’m about to consider here, remember this: the one and only reason politicians, bureaucrats, and policemen want to take your weapons away from you is so that they can do things to you that they couldn’t do if you still had your weapons."— L. Neil Smith
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 30 January 2013, 17:36
DSSRonin's Avatar
DSSRonin DSSRonin is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pearl of the Orient
Posts: 1,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoFiveMike View Post
BTW, I think we should only allow hot chicks under age 30 to immigrate. S/F....Ken M
Agree 100%. I've been a strong advocate for the Gene Pool Visa Waiver Program.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26 February 2013, 15:19
btq96r's Avatar
btq96r btq96r is offline
Calix Meus Inebrians
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Improving my Foxhole
Posts: 3,252
I'll put this little tidbit into the Immigration Reform thread since I think it is more about using the excuse of the upcoming sequestration than it being an actual factor of what happened.

Putting aside for the moment that it happened at all, the fact that ICE won't release the exact numbers, the types of infractions/crimes that lead to their detention or how exactly they plan to keep tabs on the recently released (they mention a variety of methods with a broad brush almost as an aside) disturbs me greatly. I hope this gets all kinds of scrutiny from Capital Hill, but I won't hold my breath.

I have a feeling it was more political using the upcoming crisis than practical in dealing with the effects crisis. Especially when you take into account that sequestration isn't officially active yet.
__________________
Moderation is for Canadians.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 26 February 2013, 15:37
Rockville Rockville is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 1,088
Do foreign wives get fast-tracked (less years) if married to an American military man?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Justaclerk View Post
Word, my wife went through it, she played by the rules and was granted her citizenship two years ago after holding a green card for seven.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 26 February 2013, 15:39
Rockville Rockville is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 1,088
We should copy the Republicano of Mexicooooo laws

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...glass-house-2/

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 26 February 2013, 15:59
GirlwithaGlock's Avatar
GirlwithaGlock GirlwithaGlock is offline
Russian Tycoon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottery St Catchpole
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockville View Post
Do foreign wives get fast-tracked (less years) if married to an American military man?
I hope that Justaclerk does not mind me jumping in. The answer is yes: spouses of Active Duty members of U.S. Armed Forces are eligible for expedited naturalization (INA, Section 328/329).
__________________
Dodge This!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 26 February 2013, 16:28
GirlwithaGlock's Avatar
GirlwithaGlock GirlwithaGlock is offline
Russian Tycoon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottery St Catchpole
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockville View Post
We should copy the Republicano of Mexicooooo laws

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...glass-house-2/

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
Parts of your post presents a very inaccurate summary. If you read the Mexican Constitution, Title 1, Chapter II, Articles 30-32, it is evident that Mexican born and naturalized citizens enjoy equal rights, with one exception specified in Article 32:

Quote:
In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.
In other words, there is nothing preventing a naturalized citizen from being treated as real Mexican citizen, excluding them from public service (besides the exception quoted above) or becoming a member of clergy.

If I missed something, do correct me (the full text of the Constitution can be found here).
__________________
Dodge This!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26 February 2013, 23:46
wowzers wowzers is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,633
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us...cuts.html?_r=0

I caught this on the radio on the way home today.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 27 February 2013, 00:00
assertnull's Avatar
assertnull assertnull is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SE Texas
Posts: 3,058
out of curiosity, do we have any reliable figure on the number of people a year who take the existing "path to citizenship"? A comparison to other countries? What bits I've read show roundabout a million new naturalized citizens per annum.

Elections are a concern, but they're not my concern in asking this. If the basis for some manner of immigration reform is that we're not letting in enough people, quickly enough, shouldn't we be able to look at examples of other places that are letting people come in in droves?

I remember waiting 11 months for my Brit work permit. Citizenship would have required renewal, 5 years of legal residency, a clean record, and a citizenship exam. I'd looked into getting permanent residency in Oz on a "skilled immigrant visa", the process was more or less similar. I don't see the same level of complaint about their immigration systems - is ours that much more onerous?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 27 February 2013, 00:56
nofear's Avatar
nofear nofear is offline
Proud wearer of a Beard.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia-based
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by assertnull View Post
I don't see the same level of complaint about their immigration systems - is ours that much more onerous?
Short answer? Yes.

There is a Greencard lottery, but the odds of winning are extremely slim. I think I've been in it for 12 years now?

Skills - Only if a US employer will sponsor you, which includes them proving that your skills are not available with US citizens. Obviously employers generally aren't interested in going to those lengths unless you are REALLY special.

If you're an "artist" or refugee, or something just as warm 'n' fuzzy then it's easier, but you have to go to great lengths to meet those requirements.

Investment - Another option is to "invest" USD$1,000,000 that will go towards creating jobs in the US.

Australia has a system whereby if youprove you have certain skills / qualifications, then you can apply for residency, but the US does not have that.

Another path is for Executive-level employment, which is slightly easier for the sponsoring company, but not "easy".

That's seperate to the whole marry-a-stripper path.
__________________
"Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they can't get it wrong." - Unknown
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 27 February 2013, 09:22
GirlwithaGlock's Avatar
GirlwithaGlock GirlwithaGlock is offline
Russian Tycoon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottery St Catchpole
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by assertnull View Post
out of curiosity, do we have any reliable figure on the number of people a year who take the existing "path to citizenship"?
USCIS quotes approximately 680,000 persons granted naturalization per year (this excludes denied petitions).

For comparison purposes:

Australia - 84,183 (FY 2011-12)

UK - 177,785 (FY 2011)
__________________
Dodge This!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 27 February 2013, 09:33
judylynn62002 judylynn62002 is offline
On the Extract Bird
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: MD
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlwithaGlock View Post
USCIS quotes approximately 680,000 persons granted naturalization per year (this excludes denied petitions).

For comparison purposes:

Australia - 84,183 (FY 2011-12)

UK - 177,785 (FY 2011)
What percentage of apps received does that work out to?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 27 February 2013, 09:44
GirlwithaGlock's Avatar
GirlwithaGlock GirlwithaGlock is offline
Russian Tycoon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottery St Catchpole
Posts: 3,450
Last time I looked at their data, USCIS quotes approximately 93% approval rate for naturalization petitions. It is not very accurate because of the pending petitions, but you get the general idea.

Don't have the stats for Australia; the approval rate for naturalization in UK is about 96%.

Most people get denials during their application for permanent resident. An LPR has to really be on his/her worst behavior not to get naturalized.
__________________
Dodge This!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 27 February 2013, 12:40
smp52 smp52 is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear View Post
Short answer? Yes.

There is a Greencard lottery, but the odds of winning are extremely slim. I think I've been in it for 12 years now?

Skills - Only if a US employer will sponsor you, which includes them proving that your skills are not available with US citizens. Obviously employers generally aren't interested in going to those lengths unless you are REALLY special.

If you're an "artist" or refugee, or something just as warm 'n' fuzzy then it's easier, but you have to go to great lengths to meet those requirements.

Investment - Another option is to "invest" USD$1,000,000 that will go towards creating jobs in the US.

Australia has a system whereby if youprove you have certain skills / qualifications, then you can apply for residency, but the US does not have that.

Another path is for Executive-level employment, which is slightly easier for the sponsoring company, but not "easy".

That's seperate to the whole marry-a-stripper path.
Another path of entry to the United States, besides marrying a US citizen or going the green card lottery is obtaining a STEM degree and an H1B, or applying for a Student Visa, and obtaining a Bachelors or Master's degree here in a STEM field, or other value added education which the US market has a need for. The Student Visa path has lots of foreign nationals coming here and it is BIG business for colleges as most typically have to pay full fees, unless they're good enough to get a stipend.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 2 March 2013, 11:37
Rockville Rockville is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 1,088
Well how many American(s) migrated there??

Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlwithaGlock View Post

For comparison purposes:

Australia - 84,183 (FY 2011-12)

UK - 177,785 (FY 2011)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 2 March 2013, 11:49
GirlwithaGlock's Avatar
GirlwithaGlock GirlwithaGlock is offline
Russian Tycoon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottery St Catchpole
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockville View Post
Well how many American(s) migrated there??
Good question
__________________
Dodge This!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 2 March 2013, 14:12
Rockville Rockville is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 1,088
nothing at http://www.dhs.gov/publications-0

http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=416 showed to Mexico and Panama

good stats at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_States


Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlwithaGlock View Post
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 3 March 2013, 07:11
btq96r's Avatar
btq96r btq96r is offline
Calix Meus Inebrians
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Improving my Foxhole
Posts: 3,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by btq96r View Post
Putting aside for the moment that it happened at all, the fact that ICE won't release the exact numbers...disturbs me greatly
Some numbers are starting to come out, but nothing precise of course. Originally it was “several hundred” now it's up to more than two thousand, with three thousand more planned.

So a potential of 5,000+ illegal immigrants will be released back into the population because of “sequestration”.
__________________
Moderation is for Canadians.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 4 March 2013, 13:42
GirlwithaGlock's Avatar
GirlwithaGlock GirlwithaGlock is offline
Russian Tycoon
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottery St Catchpole
Posts: 3,450
Another initiative from the Hill - Startup Act 3.0.

The act will provide a new type of visa - enterpreneur - for foreign-born nonimmigrant aliens who are in the U.S. on employment-based or student visas. Also the Act proposes a new type of visa for Master’s degree or PhD candidates in STEM fields.

http://moran.senate.gov/public/index...2-55ec8b4541f7

Quote:
The Entrepreneur Visa created by Startup Act 3.0 has the potential to add, conservatively, between 500,000 and 1.6 million new jobs for Americans over the next 10 years according to a white paper released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. At a time when the Congressional Budget Office expects unemployment to remain above 7.5 percent through 2014 and the economy to grow by just 1.4 percent this year, the job creation potential of Startup Act 3.0’s Entrepreneur Visa translates to an additional 1.6 percent increase in GDP, or about $224 billion in economic activity.

Startup Act 3.0 is the strongest, most comprehensive jobs and high-skilled immigration reform bill on the table in Congress and the only proposal that creates the Entrepreneur Visa. It was recently re-introduced in the 113th Congress by U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), along with Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
__________________
Dodge This!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 4 March 2013, 14:32
bmbsqd's Avatar
bmbsqd bmbsqd is offline
On the Extract Bird
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSP WI USA
Posts: 5,720
As long as the Dems/Libs continue to believe that Mexicans crossing the border illegally is equal to our ancestors who floated across the Atlantic to get here...the immigration battle will remain the same IMO. And as long as they can create millions of new Dem voters...it certainly will never end.

One good thing I have heard lately is that the child birth rate in Mexico is going down, and their economy is improving at a fast pace. The theory is that with these two dynamics the border crossings should decline in the next 5-10 years since the men will not have as much of a reason to cross over to feed their kids. This was a radio show I listened to in MSP this weekend, led by a former Goobernatorial candidate who primaried Pawlenty.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:14.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018