Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Reuters

Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change
​

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When Arturo Balbino, a Texas construction worker, walked into his visa interview at the American consulate in the northern Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez in March, he wasn’t nervous. He felt good.

Balbino, a 33-year-old Mexican national who had entered the United States illegally 14 years ago, thought he had a strong case for a spousal visa: a wife and children who are U.S. citizens, a father-in-law who had pledged in an affidavit to financially support him if necessary, and a letter from his employer guaranteeing him an $18-per-hour job upon his return.

When he went for the interview, he was at the final step of legalizing his status, which would, he hoped, pave the way for a more stable life for himself and his family.

Instead, the consular officer denied his application on the grounds that he could become a drain on U.S. taxpayers by requiring government financial assistance, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.

That decision stranded Balbino in Mexico indefinitely and upended his family’s life.

COMMENT:-

If an "illegal immigrant" leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status, that generally means that their American family ends up without the income that that "illegal immigrant" formerly had and that generally means that their American family ends up drawing "benefits".

Once their American family ends up drawing "benefits" that means that the "illegal immigrant" no longer qualifies for "legal" status since their family is a "financial burden on the state", and that means that they are out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

Of course, if the "illegal immigrant" does NOT leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status that means that they continue to be an "illegal immigrant" and can be deported thus depriving their American family of their income and that means that their American family is likely to end up drawing "benefits" while the "illegal immigrant" is out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

And, of course, there is no appeal from "I don't believe you." when that is what foots the person's application for "legal" status.

One does have to admire the elegant simplicity of this solution, doesn't one?
​

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Reuters

Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change
​

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When Arturo Balbino, a Texas construction worker, walked into his visa interview at the American consulate in the northern Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez in March, he wasn’t nervous. He felt good.

Balbino, a 33-year-old Mexican national who had entered the United States illegally 14 years ago, thought he had a strong case for a spousal visa: a wife and children who are U.S. citizens, a father-in-law who had pledged in an affidavit to financially support him if necessary, and a letter from his employer guaranteeing him an $18-per-hour job upon his return.

When he went for the interview, he was at the final step of legalizing his status, which would, he hoped, pave the way for a more stable life for himself and his family.

Instead, the consular officer denied his application on the grounds that he could become a drain on U.S. taxpayers by requiring government financial assistance, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.

That decision stranded Balbino in Mexico indefinitely and upended his family’s life.

COMMENT:-

If an "illegal immigrant" leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status, that generally means that their American family ends up without the income that that "illegal immigrant" formerly had and that generally means that their American family ends up drawing "benefits".

Once their American family ends up drawing "benefits" that means that the "illegal immigrant" no longer qualifies for "legal" status since their family is a "financial burden on the state", and that means that they are out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

Of course, if the "illegal immigrant" does NOT leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status that means that they continue to be an "illegal immigrant" and can be deported thus depriving their American family of their income and that means that their American family is likely to end up drawing "benefits" while the "illegal immigrant" is out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

And, of course, there is no appeal from "I don't believe you." when that is what foots the person's application for "legal" status.

One does have to admire the elegant simplicity of this solution, doesn't one?
​

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Reuters

Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change
​

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When Arturo Balbino, a Texas construction worker, walked into his visa interview at the American consulate in the northern Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez in March, he wasn’t nervous. He felt good.

Balbino, a 33-year-old Mexican national who had entered the United States illegally 14 years ago, thought he had a strong case for a spousal visa: a wife and children who are U.S. citizens, a father-in-law who had pledged in an affidavit to financially support him if necessary, and a letter from his employer guaranteeing him an $18-per-hour job upon his return.

When he went for the interview, he was at the final step of legalizing his status, which would, he hoped, pave the way for a more stable life for himself and his family.

Instead, the consular officer denied his application on the grounds that he could become a drain on U.S. taxpayers by requiring government financial assistance, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.

That decision stranded Balbino in Mexico indefinitely and upended his family’s life.

COMMENT:-

If an "illegal immigrant" leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status, that generally means that their American family ends up without the income that that "illegal immigrant" formerly had and that generally means that their American family ends up drawing "benefits".

Once their American family ends up drawing "benefits" that means that the "illegal immigrant" no longer qualifies for "legal" status since their family is a "financial burden on the state", and that means that they are out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

Of course, if the "illegal immigrant" does NOT leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status that means that they continue to be an "illegal immigrant" and can be deported thus depriving their American family of their income and that means that their American family is likely to end up drawing "benefits" while the "illegal immigrant" is out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

And, of course, there is no appeal from "I don't believe you." when that is what foots the person's application for "legal" status.

One does have to admire the elegant simplicity of this solution, doesn't one?
​

Click to expand...

dcsports said:

So buried in the article a bit is that the denial was based on the likelihood that he would require public assistance.... because his wife is unemployed and his family is already receiving public assistance.

Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:

He's in Mexico, with an $18 an hour job waiting. How much more could he do?

Click to expand...

dcsports said:

So buried in the article a bit is that the denial was based on the likelihood that he would require public assistance.... because his wife is unemployed and his family is already receiving public assistance.

Click to expand...

dcsports said:

That's a question for his appeal. But the decision itself wasn't a crazy, off the wall, one out of the blue.

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

Which, of course, wasn't the case prior to him leaving his job, going back to Mexico, and applying through the appropriate legal channels to become a "legal" immigrant.

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

From Reuters

Denials of U.S. immigrant visas skyrocket after little-heralded rule change
​

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When Arturo Balbino, a Texas construction worker, walked into his visa interview at the American consulate in the northern Mexican border town of Ciudad Juarez in March, he wasn’t nervous. He felt good.

Balbino, a 33-year-old Mexican national who had entered the United States illegally 14 years ago, thought he had a strong case for a spousal visa: a wife and children who are U.S. citizens, a father-in-law who had pledged in an affidavit to financially support him if necessary, and a letter from his employer guaranteeing him an $18-per-hour job upon his return.

When he went for the interview, he was at the final step of legalizing his status, which would, he hoped, pave the way for a more stable life for himself and his family.

Instead, the consular officer denied his application on the grounds that he could become a drain on U.S. taxpayers by requiring government financial assistance, according to documents reviewed by Reuters.

That decision stranded Balbino in Mexico indefinitely and upended his family’s life.

COMMENT:-

If an "illegal immigrant" leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status, that generally means that their American family ends up without the income that that "illegal immigrant" formerly had and that generally means that their American family ends up drawing "benefits".

Once their American family ends up drawing "benefits" that means that the "illegal immigrant" no longer qualifies for "legal" status since their family is a "financial burden on the state", and that means that they are out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

Of course, if the "illegal immigrant" does NOT leave their American family and their American job behind in order to apply through legal channels for "legal" status that means that they continue to be an "illegal immigrant" and can be deported thus depriving their American family of their income and that means that their American family is likely to end up drawing "benefits" while the "illegal immigrant" is out of the US with next to no chance of ever returning.

And, of course, there is no appeal from "I don't believe you." when that is what foots the person's application for "legal" status.

One does have to admire the elegant simplicity of this solution, doesn't one?
​

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

Can you suggest a way that ANY immigrant could establish the they MIGHT NOT (under ANY circumstances) become a "public charge"?

Click to expand...

dcsports said:

On this case... this case... the family was already on public assistance. He can't say that the family won't need public aid, because they are already there. That tripped the lever. So now he has to go through the process and appeal.

If his family wasn't already on public assistance it wouldn't have been the issue. Keep in mind that even according to the article, many, many people are approved.

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

Was the family on "public assistance" before he went back to Mexico in order to regularize his situation? The article didn't mention that and I'd appreciate a link to a reasonably reputable source that says so.

While it is true that many, many, people are approved, that is changing - isn't it?

Click to expand...

dcsports said:

You could probably google for that. The article certainly implies they were already on it.

Click to expand...

dcsports said:

No, many, many people are still approved. The article said there was a slight decrease this year (I believe 11%). That's still a lot of people.

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

The article IMPLIES that his family was in receipt of "public assistance" WHEN the decision to deny his claim was made.

I rather suspect that, if HE had been in receipt of "public assistance" before he left the US in order to follow the legal route to "regularizing his status" that the decision would have been based on the fact that HE had been in receipt of "public assistance" and that would have been the reason cited.

In fact, if that HAD been the reason cited, then the decision would have been, to me, at least, much sounder.



Thank you for confirming that the "that is changing - isn't it" bit in my "While it is true that many, many, people are approved, that is changing - isn't it?" was correct.

Would you consider an 11% reduction in your income a "slight decrease"?

Click to expand...