Jump to content

Talk:Green card/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Old discussions archived

I just archived discussions that were about immigration to the US but not relevant to improving the article. You can find them here: /Archive 1

SkepticVK (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Green Card

What ways can this status be lost? I think the article should include this. Additionally, does marriage to a US Citizen affect this at all? (For example, if someone with a green card marries a US citizen, then leaves the country with their American spouse for two years, and tries to come back, will they be able to retain their green card?) The Jade Knight 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/retain-greencard.html Gsd2000 23:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe they can retain the green card if the US spouse has been ordered overseas to work (whether military or a company transfer) but otherwise no.

Application process for non-employment-based green card?

It seems we need a segment on the process for getting a green card other than by employment, for example by marriage or other family-based immigration. I'm not sure I'm confident enough to write one, though.

RichardLetts 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) I am not sure we should include the details of the application process in wikipedia. the USCIS web pages are up to date and clear to read (not only that, nbut it's one of the first links off www.uscis.gov). any information here would either be out of date, or a duplicate of what is elsewhere.
I'd propose removing the appliction process for employment-based green cards instead.
the article should only be brief to the individual subjects and then reference to good resources that have the details. Things are very complex and are constantly changing too. Because they are so complex is it good to have a brief summary available, because not everybody wants to become an immigration lawyer :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Spouse and children

The section on "nuclear families" is misleading in that it implies that a green card is issued only for a single person. But if your spouse and children are with you in the US when you adjust status (I-485) on employment basis then they are also entitled to derivative adjustment at the same time. The difficulty occurs when someone wants to marry someone after getting a green card, or if the family is not already in legal status in the US. So for example, H-4 dependents of an H-1B (or TD of a TN-1) will get green cards along with the primary person.Offshore1 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Why is Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) not eligible?

The article doesn't mention that Great Britain is a specific exception. Does any one know why Great Britain is an exception.

Do you mean for the green card lottery? The Lottery excludes people from countries from which there have been a total of more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. over the previous five years. For the latest lottery, that means Great Britain is out. So are Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, etc.Offshore1 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And it's normally based on birthplace, not citizenship. So British citizens born in eligible jurisdictions (eg Australia) may still participate. The lists are revised every year and some countries may be added or removed depending on previous immigration patterns.JAJ 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

trackitt.com removed and immigrationvoice.org re-added

I re-added immigrationvoice.org and removed trackitt.com. Why the person who added trackitt.com did remove the other site does not make sense. Anyway. immigrationvoice.org is a movement that organizes affected immigrants that are stuck in their immigration process for years. The organization educates about the problems, not just the immigrants, but the american public as well. The trackitt.com might be practical although only to a very limited degree. Since the introduction of Perm in spring 2006 is the Department of Labor not really an issue anymore. You get it after 3 months and can't do nothing with it, because of the shortage of visa numbers that prevents a large number of immigrants with labor certification from changing status. The Department of Labor has an automated phone system for inquiries btw. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)



Famous Newsmakers section

I have removed this section - firstly because it smacks of recentism and secondly because there are far more "newsmakers" that possessed a permanent resident card. Finally, unless there is some indication that there is a relationship between Cho Seung-hui's acts and his residency status, this is essentially trivia. This makes about as much sense as putting "Famous Newsmakers Who Wear Nikes" in shoe or "Famous Newsmakers Who Smoke" in tobacco. Natalie 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Conditional permanent residence

I added this section, but it was modified later with some incorrect information. I changed it. Firstly, the form for investors is i-829, not i-826. Secondly, conditional residents get an actual card (I got one, I was a CR) not just a stamp in their passport. Also, the interview for an i-751 filing is usually waived. Mine was and so were my friends'. I'm going to add citations, but before editing, please double check the facts. - Ryan 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Medical requirements; other procedural requirements

A section (or a separate page) is needed summarizing the medical requirements to an applicant. As far as I understand, certain applicants are "not admissible" on medical grounds, and a medical examination and vaccination is required from each applicant.

Similarly, would be nice to mention the conditions based on the person's criminal/moral record, and the procedural requirements for identification (fingerprinting; photo; NO requirement of applicant's collection and submission of police records from the past states of residence [unlike e.g. in Canadian green card application process] and so on). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.78.251 (talk) 03:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional rights?

Speaking as one who became a citizen ten days ago... I am concerned about the phrase "Citizens are entitled to more constitutional rights than permanent residents", although I'd welcome input.

First, it should be "Citizens have more constitutional rights".

Second - the Fourteenth Amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The noun choice of person not citizen is significant. Doesn't the phrase "the laws" include the Constitution?

Admittedly the Constitution grants rights to citizens alone: the vote, and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". So the sentence is strictly true. But it seems to imply non-citizens are less protected under the Bill of Rights. David Brooks 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The question is: What exactly does "any person within its jurisdiction" mean? Clearly, when a person breaks the law in state A, he falls under that state's jurisdiction. But is that person also under state A's jurisdiction when he is "wanted" by state B? (And I mean "state" here in the sense of "B being that person's country of citizenship". And let's not get into the matter of dual citizenship, which is even far more complex.) In addition, no naturalized citizen of the US currently has the the same rights as a "natural citizen". For instance, US law states that no naturalized citizen of the US can become President of the US. 67.8.55.66 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuous updating of backlog?

Why not just link to the visa bulletins instead of updating this page every month? Offshore1 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the removal (diff) of all external sites from the article by User:Ohnoitsjamie that are either not a direct reference or (for the most part) not a government website.


Disclosure

I need to let you know that one of the links pointed to a resources page that I created [1] and which I also added myself on November 6, 2006 (over 1 year ago) to the article [2] (diff). Due to COI concerns did I request on November 3, 2007 a review of references in question, which includes the one mentioned here, at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The decision by the board is still outstanding today.


Request for Consideration

Okay, with this clarified and out in the open, I would like to explain, why I think that a few resources that are not controlled by the U.S. Government should be permitted to the external links section.


The simple answer is: "Read my resources page!", but it is pretty long and some people don't check referenced pages and sites during discussions.:) What qualifies me? I experienced the (currently broken) process to acquire the permanent residency first hand, for 5 1/2 years. I got my Green Card 2 months ago (unexpectedly, it wasn't expected before a year or two from now, after living close to 9 years in this country. I could care less, because I got it you might say, but the complete opposite is true. I would like to help people who are facing similar problems as I had to face, by providing tips and information about what you should do. Some of the tips are not "official" and will never be found on a .GOV domain.


Backround

The current system is broken. Some of the stuff that was broken was fixed (PERM etc.), while others were not due to politics and not rational decision making (Read this unofficial info-flyer from October 2006 to get the short rundown (PDF)) of the problems). Believe it or not, there is currently the official way and communication going on and at the same time are things done unofficially under the radar to provide as much possible relief for the affected families as possible. No USCIS employee (INS folks) will ever admit that publicly, because it does officially not happen.

The Wikipedia article loses a lot of value by the entire removal of the external links in question.


Following links were removed.


Links that were kept
  • ImmigrationVoice Discussing problems and solutions to the employment-based green card process, including backlogs in EB2 and EB3 visa categories
  • Trackitt.com US immigration trackers: green card processing tracker


This link was just added [3] (diff)

The user is somebody from Estonia dialed in with DSL from Estonia to make two edits. This one and the addition of an external link to the K-1 visa article [4] (contributions).

I was about to remove it, because it looks like a blatant WP:EL violation to me, but I hesitated and checked the pages that were linked to. I found good information about a currently critical step (the last step btw) of the green card process, where most people get currently stuck due to the issues mentioned already. I found the answer to one of my few questions there that remained unanswered because I didn't had to know the answers in great detail anymore (I got my Green Card, remember?!). I am going to refer to it on my resources page now as well.


Why did I not remove the Spam?

Admitted, its a law firm and the commercial interest is obviously. However, you immigration lawyer becomes your best friend, because the INS folks can only help very little and even your local congress man can't do nothing to help your case as well (tried that, didn't work). This lawyer does obviously know what is going on. That's already a plus. He is also able to communicate stuff that makes your head spinn when digested raw in a way that can be understood by normal people who are not INS employees or immigration lawyers. This does not mean that I would hire him or recommend him. It would be worth the time to find out a bit more about him though and put him on a list of potential candidates.


Personal Story

My lawyer sucked and I had to leave the country involuntarily because of it back in 2005. I had to leave without knowing what will happen and when. I considered the place where I lived, worked, paid taxes and made friends over the previous 5+ years my home. I had to leave it as is, leaving my stuff behind, including a car with payments due every month. All kinds of scenarios had to be played through mentally, because everything good or bad was possible. I was already glimpsing at possible job opportunities back in Germany and trained for a straight face that I might have to show the INS guy a month later, if I can't get a new work authorization, to enter as tourist to be able to take care of my belongings in the U.S., organize storage and sell my car, close bank accounts and all that. If I would tell the honest reason for my visit, I would be sent back and not permitted to enter. That would have eventually resulted in a total loss of everything I owned and a change from good credit standing to poor credit. I would have been all happy to get my Green Card two years later, when everything I worked for over all those years would have been lost because the USCIS is short of visa numbers to issue to all those guys that were trapped at a backlog at the DOL for years, then got relieved with the PERM to find out that they are not allowed to change status for years to come, because somebody in Washington decided to use this as a bargaining chip in their awful poker game called "immigration debate" (yeah, the one about the illegal's, not the legal's. Funny, isn't it?).


Okay, enough. I think I made my point clear. Thanks for your consideration. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by User Ohnoitsjamie and Comments to Allegations

This is a response to the comment by User:Ohnoitsjamie and User talk:EdJohnston at my user talk page. I moved the discussion to the article's talk page, because I think that it is more appropriate to talk about this in public, since the general debate was also started publicly earlier.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Quote Ohnoitsjamie: "You should not be adding links to your own advertisement-laden commercial site. Please stop doing it. Regardless of whether the US immigration process is "broken" as you say, I don't feel that your personal site meets reliable sources criteria in addition to being a WP:COI violation. I'll be happy to file an WP:RFC if you'd like."
  1. Quote EdJohnston: "I support Ohnoitsjamie's removal of the links. The argument that Carsten offers in their defence on the article's Talk page is, in my view, way too long and excessively personal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and links to personal sites are still normally to be avoided. A bad experience with US immigration is not a reason to bend our link policy. Consider seeking publication of your concerns about immigration in other forums."
  • Comment to Ohnoitsjamie:
  1. if "advertisement-laden commercial site" is your assessment of the referenced site, then I have to question your diligence and thoroughness of checking references. I suggest that you take another and closer look at the site.
  2. As I mentioned on the talk page, did I posted at the reliable sources noticeboard a request for the review of references that involve sites that I control. Feel free to comment and provide your arguments there. My request was archived without any objections, which I consider to be the same as an approval. This was also the reason that lead me to re-add the reference. Another reason was the absence of any positive or negative comments to my argumentation at the article's talk page. I even contacted the editor who removed the reference together with others about my comments. The editor did not respond to it to this day until today (or yesterday to be precise). As I stated already multiple times, I am seeking actively the discussion whether or not the resource can be considered reliable enough for the inclusion in the article or not.
  3. While it is absolutely legitimate to question if WP:RS is being met by the reference, so is this case not a violation of WP:COI. There is no conflict of interest, because I am not involved with the U.S. government, not participating in any organization nor a professional (e.g. lawyer) who operates in that field. Being somebody who went through the process creates as much of a conflict of interest as edits to the article about American history create a conflict for somebody who is an American himself. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • p.s. Jamie, I don't believe that there is a need for WP:RFC, the reliable sources noticeboard should do just fine. Let me know, if you agree with this assessment or not. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to EdJohnston: I appreciate your comments and admit that the comment on the talk page was in part very emotional. This is certainly not the right tone for the article itself, but there is nothing wrong with expressing feelings at a talk page. The bad experience I had is unfortunately not an exception. The experience was the motivator for the creation of the resources page on my non-commercial family website (I did not put it on that site on purpose to avoid allegations of "commercial intentions"). Furthermore, the involuntarily contention with the subject matter of a period of time that is longer than a college education for a bachelor degree made me to a certain extend also an expert on the issue. If it is sufficient enough to qualify as a reliable source as specified in WP:RS remains to be decided.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The COI is a function of it being your own site, with Google-ads. That's a pretty strong COI as far as I'm concerned. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's actually not part of the definition of WP:COI and as far as I understand also not its intention. Anyhow, I am a marketer and things like this happen without me giving much thought to it. If it would change the opinion about WP:RS, I have no problem whatsoever to remove any Ad on that page. Would that change your opinion about the reference? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
How about the second sentence of WP:COI, which says COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests. I'm not sure that removing the ads would help the RS situation...while your site is informative and arguably helpful, it is in a sense just a personal account of your immigration experiences, and as such may be disqualified in the same way that blogs are usually disqualified. I appreciate your posting the question to the RS talk page, but lack of response doesn't automatically mean tacit approval (i.e., AFDs are relisted if there is not enough commentary on them, not passed by default). OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I removed ALL ads from the page. The personal experience is provided to give the reader the information about my qualification to speak about the subject. It shows to what extend my comments and recommendations are trustworthy and where it moves to the realm of being not qualified. The core part of the page are information and specific tips how to avoid or deal with specific issues. It also translates into plain English what is described in ciphers and legal talk in documents published by the government and immigration lawyers. Since the site does not provide a new fact (if you exclude some of the hands-on tips) that is cited in the article, did I also not add it as a "source", but under "further reading" (or however you want to call that section), because it only provides a different perspective on the whole subject. p.s. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests. if you broaden the meaning of WP:COI to this extend, every edit to Wikipedia qualifies as WP:COI, but lets not go there. There were already plenty discussions about that. See WP:COIN. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please also consider that the subject is currently very controversial, which makes it important to include to some extend references to alternative views and interpretations of the subject, just for the sake of WP:NPOV. It's not about my unimportant page in the bigger picture of things. I don't say that my page HAS TO be included somewhere in the article, but some references to non-official content that is related to the subject can not just be ignored and kept out of the article. Maybe there are good RS that can be cited that provide an alternative view on things. I for my part will not lean myself further out of the window than I already did to commit political suicide by becoming a citable source for things that are currently wrong with that process. I am glad that I have my card now and don't want to rid myself of it soon. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sticking with WP:EL. Links to personal sites are normally to be avoided. If you can find some reliable sources that make any of the same points, they might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced either. I'm always suspicious when an editor intent on including links to their own site. Ads or not, Ed is correct that it does violate WP:EL. If you want "balance," surely there are some media articles about the process that discuss it's flaws. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The October 2006 flyer by the Immigration Support Services is pretty good describing the situation. It was a print flyer and is available in digital format here. Most of their content on their site are PDFs what sucks a bit, however, the content is good and relevant and the reason why I added their site to the article. You probably noticed that already, because you did not removed them like you did with my page and the ImmiHelp.com site. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Roy, some folks just hate the idea that there are attributions to sites that they, for some reason happen to disagree with or not like. They're have been some people on other doing similar things, and it's my experience that often the reliability of information is by far of less concern than the fact that there aren't sources or links which they disagree with. I'd wait for Google Knol and then get moving... BMWLover81 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Advance Parole - Travel Documents

With the recent rewrite of some of the article got something lost in the article that is important and should be mentioned. The article currently states:

"... a temporary travel document, advance parole, which allows the alien to re-enter the United States. Both permits confer benefits that are independent of any existing status granted to the alien. For example, the alien might already have permission to work in the US under an H-1B visa."

The article fails to clarify what the Form I-131 is needed for. You don't need it, if you have a valid work visa without any special additional status or situation. The alien worker can travel in and out the United States without the need for any advance parole documents. It is required for sure, if the alien worker filed for the adjustment of status and the application was accepted, but not approved yet. The time between filing the application until the decision was made about it used to be a matter of weeks in the past, but that changed due to the shortage of available visa numbers for permanent aliens (thanks to the annual cap and the still existing backlog). I am not sure if an advance parole document is needed if the alien worker is in the extension of his H-1B for example (after the six year maximum lifespan of the visa was surpassed without the foreign worker being able to complete his immigration/green card process). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_card/Archive_2&oldid=1087722236"