Tweet
Re: Виза бюллетень - Прогноз, продолжение...
наверно хватит и кратко объяснить вот это, а то не могу слова до кучи собрать
Why should President Obama or President Romney make this technical change an early priority? First, it would reflect their immigration commitments, party platforms, and campaign statements. The Obama administration has already taken a significant step in this direction. In April 2012, USCIS published a proposed rule that would allow certain close family members of US citizens — spouses, unmarried children under age 21, or parents — to apply for waivers before leaving the country. However, persons in preference categories — to whom the rule does not extend — will continue to face significant uncertainty, expense, lengthy separation from family, and even danger, as they negotiate the waiver process in locations like Ciudad Juárez. Governor Romney, in turn, has vowed that as president he would remove the “red tape” that keeps immigrant families apart and would give the immediate families of LPRs “the same priority as citizens” in the visa process. Pre-adjudication of waivers would seem to be consistent with these goals.
Second, executive action on this issue would benefit many thousand U.S. families. USCIS estimated that its proposed rule would increase waiver applications for “unlawful presence” by between 54,887 and 197,594 over a ten-year period. It also concluded that the rule would reduce overall visa processing times, shorten periods of family separation, and reduce costs for USCIS and DOS.
Third, this procedure would promote and reward compliance with the law. The unauthorized have been characterized as scofflaws who are seeking to obtain an advantage over those who have “played by the rules.” The persons affected by this provision belie that claim. They have gone through the proper legal channels. They are not jumping ahead in the line: Most have been in the line for years. Pre-adjudication of waivers — while not changing any of the substantive legal requirements for a visa or a waiver — would encourage more family members of US citizens and LPRs to continue the visa process and would prompt others to begin this process.
Fourth, the president should pursue this initiative because he can. The larger problems related to the way that the family-based immigration system separates and destabilizes families can be resolved legislatively by easing the yearly caps by nationality and preference category, and by allowing more persons to obtain their green cards without having to leave the country. However, Congress has failed to address immigration challenges as diverse as the DREAMers (on the one hand) and the nation’s need for more highly-skilled workers (on the other). Early Executive action of this kind would signal the president’s willingness to lead on immigration reform and to choose the well-being of American families over the politics of division and exclusion.
наверно хватит и кратко объяснить вот это, а то не могу слова до кучи собрать
Why should President Obama or President Romney make this technical change an early priority? First, it would reflect their immigration commitments, party platforms, and campaign statements. The Obama administration has already taken a significant step in this direction. In April 2012, USCIS published a proposed rule that would allow certain close family members of US citizens — spouses, unmarried children under age 21, or parents — to apply for waivers before leaving the country. However, persons in preference categories — to whom the rule does not extend — will continue to face significant uncertainty, expense, lengthy separation from family, and even danger, as they negotiate the waiver process in locations like Ciudad Juárez. Governor Romney, in turn, has vowed that as president he would remove the “red tape” that keeps immigrant families apart and would give the immediate families of LPRs “the same priority as citizens” in the visa process. Pre-adjudication of waivers would seem to be consistent with these goals.
Second, executive action on this issue would benefit many thousand U.S. families. USCIS estimated that its proposed rule would increase waiver applications for “unlawful presence” by between 54,887 and 197,594 over a ten-year period. It also concluded that the rule would reduce overall visa processing times, shorten periods of family separation, and reduce costs for USCIS and DOS.
Third, this procedure would promote and reward compliance with the law. The unauthorized have been characterized as scofflaws who are seeking to obtain an advantage over those who have “played by the rules.” The persons affected by this provision belie that claim. They have gone through the proper legal channels. They are not jumping ahead in the line: Most have been in the line for years. Pre-adjudication of waivers — while not changing any of the substantive legal requirements for a visa or a waiver — would encourage more family members of US citizens and LPRs to continue the visa process and would prompt others to begin this process.
Fourth, the president should pursue this initiative because he can. The larger problems related to the way that the family-based immigration system separates and destabilizes families can be resolved legislatively by easing the yearly caps by nationality and preference category, and by allowing more persons to obtain their green cards without having to leave the country. However, Congress has failed to address immigration challenges as diverse as the DREAMers (on the one hand) and the nation’s need for more highly-skilled workers (on the other). Early Executive action of this kind would signal the president’s willingness to lead on immigration reform and to choose the well-being of American families over the politics of division and exclusion.
Comment