iptel
05-03 12:06 AM
I would not recomen contacting Mr Savage. He does not appear to be the person that would help our cause.
He is openly anti-latino, openly calls for burning of mexican flag etc..
why do you think he would support legal immigration?
I'm not concerned about he being anti-latino but he is anti-immigrant he feels immigration is destroying the American Culture.
See below
These are the candid words of Michael Savage, the son of immigrants, whose love for America and trenchant insights into the leftist propaganda that threatens our way of life have made him a giant in talk radio. In this book, written in his muscular, electrifying style, Savage warns that our country is losing its identity, becoming a victim of political correctness, unmonitored immigration, and socialistic ideals: "When it comes to our culture, we're being told by liberals to let the illegal invaders as well as the legal newcomers redefine and reshape our culture into their image."
He is openly anti-latino, openly calls for burning of mexican flag etc..
why do you think he would support legal immigration?
I'm not concerned about he being anti-latino but he is anti-immigrant he feels immigration is destroying the American Culture.
See below
These are the candid words of Michael Savage, the son of immigrants, whose love for America and trenchant insights into the leftist propaganda that threatens our way of life have made him a giant in talk radio. In this book, written in his muscular, electrifying style, Savage warns that our country is losing its identity, becoming a victim of political correctness, unmonitored immigration, and socialistic ideals: "When it comes to our culture, we're being told by liberals to let the illegal invaders as well as the legal newcomers redefine and reshape our culture into their image."
wallpaper Volkswagen Jetta 2011
gcbikari
10-02 11:40 AM
I am GCBikari and I approve this message. You are saying you ran out of savings and in next paragraph you're talking about investments!! Anyway what I did was list out all minimum payments (rent/mortgage, car, utilities, groceries, gas). This gives the money needed every month in worst case. Then multiply by 6 months. Keep that amount in bank or a locker (now a days difficult to trust banks also!!). Then go for what others talk about like 401k, Roth IRA.. You will have a better start once you know how much you need per month to make a living on bare minimum.
My recommendation would be to build at least 6 months of emergency fund. Open an account with ING Direct or HSBC where they pay decent interest rate on a savigs account. Build the emergency fund first.
Once you have sufficient foundation, then I'd say start building investment foundation. If you employer has 4o1K plan, then start putting pre-tax dollars upto the maximum contribution at employer matches (generally it is 6%). If your employer doesn't have 401K plan, then open a ROTH IRA and start investing in low cost mutual funds or index funds. Vanguard is generally the best place to get low cost, no load funds. Once you max out both 4o1K and ROTH IRA, then start looking into opening a taxable individual investment account.
Hope this helps.
Disclaimer: I've all of the above I'm recommending and have followed the same plan I've given you.
My recommendation would be to build at least 6 months of emergency fund. Open an account with ING Direct or HSBC where they pay decent interest rate on a savigs account. Build the emergency fund first.
Once you have sufficient foundation, then I'd say start building investment foundation. If you employer has 4o1K plan, then start putting pre-tax dollars upto the maximum contribution at employer matches (generally it is 6%). If your employer doesn't have 401K plan, then open a ROTH IRA and start investing in low cost mutual funds or index funds. Vanguard is generally the best place to get low cost, no load funds. Once you max out both 4o1K and ROTH IRA, then start looking into opening a taxable individual investment account.
Hope this helps.
Disclaimer: I've all of the above I'm recommending and have followed the same plan I've given you.
jungalee43
02-26 08:32 PM
I think if Indian external affairs ministry understands that highly skilled Indian born citizens have to wait for 16 to 50 years where as even less skilled candidate gets away with green card in 6 months just because he was NOT born in India; they would at least protest in soft words.
2011 2011 Volkswagen Jetta Recalled
bsbawa10
05-26 09:23 PM
This is just a humour but has a meaning underneath if you try to understand. I am comparing USCIS to a product selling company. If USCIS was a TV selling company what would happen to the customers the way it acts ?
You could buy a TV but you will not know when you will get it. It could be shipped the next week, the next month, next year or never.
The credit card will be charged once, may be charged twice or a valid CC may get rejected.
Somebody who buys a TV from USCSIS a 2 years after you do, he may get it sooner than you do.
USCIS has no way of knowing how many TVs have been ordered and how many of them are in stock.
In case you do not receive your TV in two years, USCIS acknowledges that there is a long wait time for some and does not do anything about it. USCIS thinks acknowledgment of wait time is more than enough that it has done for the customers. Customers did not deserve this but USCIS did a favour to them being a good "Customer Service" company
There would be an online survey after you buy it which would never get submitted 99% of the times.
In case it did get submitted, somebody will read one out of 10,000.
After reading it he will throw it in the trash can.
If you get a defective TV (which is quite likely), you have a chance to file appeal by paying the same amount of money for the TV again so that your case can be re-opened.
I wonder how many customers would USCIS have eventually ??? Any guesses ??? :-)
You could buy a TV but you will not know when you will get it. It could be shipped the next week, the next month, next year or never.
The credit card will be charged once, may be charged twice or a valid CC may get rejected.
Somebody who buys a TV from USCSIS a 2 years after you do, he may get it sooner than you do.
USCIS has no way of knowing how many TVs have been ordered and how many of them are in stock.
In case you do not receive your TV in two years, USCIS acknowledges that there is a long wait time for some and does not do anything about it. USCIS thinks acknowledgment of wait time is more than enough that it has done for the customers. Customers did not deserve this but USCIS did a favour to them being a good "Customer Service" company
There would be an online survey after you buy it which would never get submitted 99% of the times.
In case it did get submitted, somebody will read one out of 10,000.
After reading it he will throw it in the trash can.
If you get a defective TV (which is quite likely), you have a chance to file appeal by paying the same amount of money for the TV again so that your case can be re-opened.
I wonder how many customers would USCIS have eventually ??? Any guesses ??? :-)
more...
franklin
02-22 04:17 PM
Thanks a lot. Pls. tell them about immigrationVoice and ask them to cover our issues.
Absolutely - in all responses I include my actual name/ email / sometimes my address or phone number if they request it. I always include a link to the IV homepage and disclose I am a member of the group - along with key issues our group faces (mainly a synopsis of the "green card process and problems" resource page here, and an example case study summary - i.e. "this is what is happening to me")
Absolutely - in all responses I include my actual name/ email / sometimes my address or phone number if they request it. I always include a link to the IV homepage and disclose I am a member of the group - along with key issues our group faces (mainly a synopsis of the "green card process and problems" resource page here, and an example case study summary - i.e. "this is what is happening to me")
checklaw
04-01 12:10 AM
Done
more...
Iamthejuggler
03-24 01:18 PM
To be honest i can't stand that grimy look anymore. I think it was more that i'm bored of the style rather than it doesn't look good.
2010 The all new Volkswagen Jetta
mhathi
06-16 05:31 PM
just for comparison sakes...do remember that the distance from churchgate to virar (in bombay) is 35 km. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Suburban_Railway.
That is equivalent of approx 22 miles. I doubt there is anybody is bombay that drives 35 km one way on a daily basis. But in the US living 10-20 miles from work is not bad. People in my office drive about 40 miles one way without blinking an eyelid. Some drive even more. Plus the cars that they have in india have smaller engines, smaller capacity thereby better gas mileage.
So for people who say gas is a non issue, think again.
not to mention public tranportation in Bombay compared to majority of US cities, barring handful like San Francisco, Chicago and New York.
That is equivalent of approx 22 miles. I doubt there is anybody is bombay that drives 35 km one way on a daily basis. But in the US living 10-20 miles from work is not bad. People in my office drive about 40 miles one way without blinking an eyelid. Some drive even more. Plus the cars that they have in india have smaller engines, smaller capacity thereby better gas mileage.
So for people who say gas is a non issue, think again.
not to mention public tranportation in Bombay compared to majority of US cities, barring handful like San Francisco, Chicago and New York.
more...
shana04
10-06 07:59 PM
Indeed, what an ironic day... we have two headline news items concerning Indian Americans...
The Good: A 35 year old Indian American is tapped to head the $700B bailout fund...
The Ugly: A family of 6 dies in LA in a murder-suicide ...
What does this say?
Neel Kashkari, Kashkari, an Indian-American who was born in Ohio, is one more example of how Paulson has drawn on former executives at Goldman to staff Treasury. Paulson also leans heavily on former Goldman Sachs executives Dan Jester, a financial institutions banker, and Steve Shafran, who focused on corporate restructuring while at Goldman
The Good: A 35 year old Indian American is tapped to head the $700B bailout fund...
The Ugly: A family of 6 dies in LA in a murder-suicide ...
What does this say?
Neel Kashkari, Kashkari, an Indian-American who was born in Ohio, is one more example of how Paulson has drawn on former executives at Goldman to staff Treasury. Paulson also leans heavily on former Goldman Sachs executives Dan Jester, a financial institutions banker, and Steve Shafran, who focused on corporate restructuring while at Goldman
hair The all new Volkswagen Jetta
makemygc
06-17 05:27 PM
Medical exam is considered part of "intial evidence" for the I485. If your friend files without the medical report, his application will be rejected without an RFE.
Hmmm...we realized that after reading immigration-law.com. Earlier USCIS was lenient and they used to issue RFE but it seems that since so many application will be filed in coming months, they are going to be strict and will deny the application without issuing RFE.
Thanks for bringing out attention to it.
Hmmm...we realized that after reading immigration-law.com. Earlier USCIS was lenient and they used to issue RFE but it seems that since so many application will be filed in coming months, they are going to be strict and will deny the application without issuing RFE.
Thanks for bringing out attention to it.
more...
apahilaj
08-22 08:41 AM
It seems like except for one or two people here, individuals who have applied directly at TSC on 2nd July are getting their checks cashed/receipts this week.
It would be helpful to know if they are done with the transfer of 2nd July cases from NSC to TSC; if so, when and based on that, we can make some educated estimates.
It would be helpful to know if they are done with the transfer of 2nd July cases from NSC to TSC; if so, when and based on that, we can make some educated estimates.
hot 2011 Volkswagen Jetta
Janisaris
09-13 05:50 PM
Does anyone know that what is the processing speed on getting mail receipt from CSC? my checks were just got encashed last night 9/12/2207.
When did you file?
When did you file?
more...
house Volkswagen Jetta for 2011.
saketkapur
07-13 07:54 PM
No, you will still have to complete the requirement or else your 485 will be denied. There is no escape from waiver. :eek:
Always remember that a J1 visa is a non-immigrant visa and H1B(waiver) is dual intent. If your spouse applies for your GC(i.e. files your 485) before you have not completed your waiver requirements there are 2 things that can happen:
1. Either you will get your 485 rejected,
or
2. Your J1 visa will be denied. Always remember residency visas(J1 or H1) are given on a yearly basis and yours will get denied the next year even if you get it for the 1st year.
Infact my wife started her residency on J1 visa and my 140 was approved. She will be starting her waiver next year. I have a PD of feb 2007. I will be filing her 485 as accompnying spouse(you can use your PD even if you have received your GC:conformed this with my attorney) once her waiver is approved and if my PD becomes current. However she will still not get her final green card until she has completed her waiver requirements.
We had decided not to let USCIS define our carreer objectives and going with the flow. Looking from the likes of it she will be done with her waiver in another 3 years and still the PD won't be current.
Now look at the bright side of J1 visa:
1. Once her waiver is approved I file for her 485(she gets her EAD) using my original PD(no need to get into family based immigrtation hassles)
2. Since we have not exhaused our H1B( she gets 6 years of the same)
3. Her 1st H1B is quota exempt.
4.You save tonns of money since J1 are exempt from social security and medicare taxes etc. :)
You will eventually have to make your own judement call depending on your family circumstances.......so far as I mentioned we just decided to go with the flow and things seem to have worked out for us well. She got the recidency in the same place as my job was and then I got laid off 3 months back and now she got her new job in the same place where my new job is.........
Again you will have to decide how you will want to proceed per your circumstances. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Always remember that a J1 visa is a non-immigrant visa and H1B(waiver) is dual intent. If your spouse applies for your GC(i.e. files your 485) before you have not completed your waiver requirements there are 2 things that can happen:
1. Either you will get your 485 rejected,
or
2. Your J1 visa will be denied. Always remember residency visas(J1 or H1) are given on a yearly basis and yours will get denied the next year even if you get it for the 1st year.
Infact my wife started her residency on J1 visa and my 140 was approved. She will be starting her waiver next year. I have a PD of feb 2007. I will be filing her 485 as accompnying spouse(you can use your PD even if you have received your GC:conformed this with my attorney) once her waiver is approved and if my PD becomes current. However she will still not get her final green card until she has completed her waiver requirements.
We had decided not to let USCIS define our carreer objectives and going with the flow. Looking from the likes of it she will be done with her waiver in another 3 years and still the PD won't be current.
Now look at the bright side of J1 visa:
1. Once her waiver is approved I file for her 485(she gets her EAD) using my original PD(no need to get into family based immigrtation hassles)
2. Since we have not exhaused our H1B( she gets 6 years of the same)
3. Her 1st H1B is quota exempt.
4.You save tonns of money since J1 are exempt from social security and medicare taxes etc. :)
You will eventually have to make your own judement call depending on your family circumstances.......so far as I mentioned we just decided to go with the flow and things seem to have worked out for us well. She got the recidency in the same place as my job was and then I got laid off 3 months back and now she got her new job in the same place where my new job is.........
Again you will have to decide how you will want to proceed per your circumstances. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
tattoo 2011 Volkswagen Jetta
eager_immi
01-25 01:21 PM
I have made a contribution of 300 and another $20 re-curring monthly contribution since jan 07. Now you get my point, the spreadsheet would help u get that information without asking me for it.
To start off with inspiring 'others', maybe you should note in your signature IF you have made a recurring donation, as a lot of other members have done.
I am sure that should work with people who can get 'inspired'. I dont think we need to worry about the others, since they will not contribute anyways.
To start off with inspiring 'others', maybe you should note in your signature IF you have made a recurring donation, as a lot of other members have done.
I am sure that should work with people who can get 'inspired'. I dont think we need to worry about the others, since they will not contribute anyways.
more...
pictures 2011 Volkswagen Jetta
tonyHK12
11-12 03:14 PM
Why every discussion has to end with donate - why donate? What IV has done so far? Where the money goes? EB2 vs EB3... etc. Stop hijacking threads.
.
I wonder if this is one of the rogue users from another forum. this is tiring to post everyday, but here are IVs acheivements:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/1707445-dec-visa-bulletin.html#post2100101
well the so called hijacking - The very fact this website is even up is because of donors.
Also I contribute $100 a month and don't get any money from IV. We are all volunteers.
We are all immigrants working on a campaign.
I see that the ones who don't want to do any work start complaining and blame every one else who is contributing. And you want to attack IV and donors!
Also see the yahoo video posted above.
Of course no one is forcing you to donate, you can just go around complaining, accusing and attacking everyone for the next 10 years instead.
.
I wonder if this is one of the rogue users from another forum. this is tiring to post everyday, but here are IVs acheivements:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/forum2-retrogression-priority-dates-and-visa-bulletins/1707445-dec-visa-bulletin.html#post2100101
well the so called hijacking - The very fact this website is even up is because of donors.
Also I contribute $100 a month and don't get any money from IV. We are all volunteers.
We are all immigrants working on a campaign.
I see that the ones who don't want to do any work start complaining and blame every one else who is contributing. And you want to attack IV and donors!
Also see the yahoo video posted above.
Of course no one is forcing you to donate, you can just go around complaining, accusing and attacking everyone for the next 10 years instead.
dresses 2011 Volkswagen Jetta Interior
GC08
08-26 11:04 AM
Have to agree that it appears to be the case. Look at I140... there is a 4 month difference between the 2 centers. How could that happen?! How come they did not balance the workload to ensure work is done in an orderly way? Probably it is pure mismanagement and incompetence???
more...
makeup 2011 Volkswagen Jetta TDI
logiclife
04-09 02:13 AM
First of all, ethnicity has nothing to do with hard cap.
First of all, you have to understand what hard-cap implies. Hard cap is a new thing proposed in the bill out of judiciary commitee that PREVENTS over-subscribed countries(Usually that's India and China each year) from using the UNUSED visa numbers each year.
EMPHASIS ON UNUSED.
So, given the 10 percent per country(it is 7% today) each country can and would use UPTO 10 percent of available visas first. FIRST. Usually what happens is that India and China use up their numbers and other countries do not use their own quota. So the unused numbers would be then alloted to India and China rather than being unused to diverted to FB categories.
So the removal of hard cap has NOTHING to do with diversity - ethnically or nationality-wise. HARD CAP DOES NOT PROTECT any country.
Today, the soft cap exists, and the numbers are retrogressed only for India and China. REST of the world is current. Hard cap would make things worse for only those countries that have higher demand and WASTE the visa numbers.
Please get your analysis on hard-cap Vs Soft-cap, the visa usage numbers etc. before you emphasize ethnic diversity as the two have NOTHING to do with each other.
First of all, you have to understand what hard-cap implies. Hard cap is a new thing proposed in the bill out of judiciary commitee that PREVENTS over-subscribed countries(Usually that's India and China each year) from using the UNUSED visa numbers each year.
EMPHASIS ON UNUSED.
So, given the 10 percent per country(it is 7% today) each country can and would use UPTO 10 percent of available visas first. FIRST. Usually what happens is that India and China use up their numbers and other countries do not use their own quota. So the unused numbers would be then alloted to India and China rather than being unused to diverted to FB categories.
So the removal of hard cap has NOTHING to do with diversity - ethnically or nationality-wise. HARD CAP DOES NOT PROTECT any country.
Today, the soft cap exists, and the numbers are retrogressed only for India and China. REST of the world is current. Hard cap would make things worse for only those countries that have higher demand and WASTE the visa numbers.
Please get your analysis on hard-cap Vs Soft-cap, the visa usage numbers etc. before you emphasize ethnic diversity as the two have NOTHING to do with each other.
girlfriend 2011 Volkswagen Jetta Gallery
adde72
03-15 09:25 PM
3 options
1) file H1 on Apr 1st and if H4 is not approved by then withdraw pending H4
2) file H1 on Apr 1st before the current H4 expires and hope that H4 is approved before H1. H1 should be approved after H4 to have the H1 status. If H4 is approved later, H1 status will be lost
3) Request PP of extension and 99.9% of time 539 is approved along with 129.
I will add more info as I find.
HTH
Hi nixstor,
Looks like you had done some research in this matter . Can you advise me . i am also in the same situation like yours .
My current H1 is going to expire on june 07 along with my wife's H4. I applied today for my extension along with the H4 in premium processing. Shall i go ahead with the new H1 for my wife on April 1 in regular processing even without waiting for the extension or wait for the approval?
Any issues with that approach?
1) file H1 on Apr 1st and if H4 is not approved by then withdraw pending H4
2) file H1 on Apr 1st before the current H4 expires and hope that H4 is approved before H1. H1 should be approved after H4 to have the H1 status. If H4 is approved later, H1 status will be lost
3) Request PP of extension and 99.9% of time 539 is approved along with 129.
I will add more info as I find.
HTH
Hi nixstor,
Looks like you had done some research in this matter . Can you advise me . i am also in the same situation like yours .
My current H1 is going to expire on june 07 along with my wife's H4. I applied today for my extension along with the H4 in premium processing. Shall i go ahead with the new H1 for my wife on April 1 in regular processing even without waiting for the extension or wait for the approval?
Any issues with that approach?
hairstyles 2011 Volkswagen Jetta Rear
rajesh_kamisetty
04-20 10:26 PM
How about that?
anurakt
10-04 10:13 AM
Hi all,
Thanks for the responses and sorry for Confusions..
I am giving the scenario more clearly..
My name Before mariz is"Venkata Naga Sunita" surname: "Prachina" (changed identity).
After mariz surname changed to "Naveena".
When I applied for H4 alongwith my husband's H1B, I had my passport with old surname(Prachina). That passport got stamped for H4. Later I got another passport with surname changed(Naveena). At this point, I have one passport of old surname with H4 stamp and another passport with new surname.
While entering into US this January, on I-94, I wrote "Venkata Naga Sunita" Last name: "Naveena". In March, DMV ppl told me that the name in the I-94 should match with Visa". When, I applied for H1B in May with this new surname and attached this I-94 that has new surname "Naveena".
During H1B processing, I had to visit my home country on emergency purpose and got approval of H1B on Sept 7th, which is valid only from Oct 2nd. I re-entered to US on Sept10th and wrote my last name as "Prachina" on I-94(to match with current H4 Visa with which I am entering US). When I recived my papers this week, I was happy to see that my Change of Status is approved and surprised to see that my name on the I-797 and attached I-94 is printed as "Sunita V" Last Name:"Naveena".
Now, the I-94 number and name that are present on my I-797 are not matching that are attached to my passport. Is this OK or going to create any problems in future(SSN or stamping)..
This is better to understand :
I think you have two situations here :
1. When you entered the US , you gave a name as "Prachina" instead of "Naveena" , why did you do this ?
2.INS Made a mistake on the 797 , this you ask them to correct . Also you have so many names in your nake that it's very uncommon. The computers don't have four fields to put your name ..thus your actual last name got replaced.....
Again all said, please refer an attorney in this matter.
Thanks for the responses and sorry for Confusions..
I am giving the scenario more clearly..
My name Before mariz is"Venkata Naga Sunita" surname: "Prachina" (changed identity).
After mariz surname changed to "Naveena".
When I applied for H4 alongwith my husband's H1B, I had my passport with old surname(Prachina). That passport got stamped for H4. Later I got another passport with surname changed(Naveena). At this point, I have one passport of old surname with H4 stamp and another passport with new surname.
While entering into US this January, on I-94, I wrote "Venkata Naga Sunita" Last name: "Naveena". In March, DMV ppl told me that the name in the I-94 should match with Visa". When, I applied for H1B in May with this new surname and attached this I-94 that has new surname "Naveena".
During H1B processing, I had to visit my home country on emergency purpose and got approval of H1B on Sept 7th, which is valid only from Oct 2nd. I re-entered to US on Sept10th and wrote my last name as "Prachina" on I-94(to match with current H4 Visa with which I am entering US). When I recived my papers this week, I was happy to see that my Change of Status is approved and surprised to see that my name on the I-797 and attached I-94 is printed as "Sunita V" Last Name:"Naveena".
Now, the I-94 number and name that are present on my I-797 are not matching that are attached to my passport. Is this OK or going to create any problems in future(SSN or stamping)..
This is better to understand :
I think you have two situations here :
1. When you entered the US , you gave a name as "Prachina" instead of "Naveena" , why did you do this ?
2.INS Made a mistake on the 797 , this you ask them to correct . Also you have so many names in your nake that it's very uncommon. The computers don't have four fields to put your name ..thus your actual last name got replaced.....
Again all said, please refer an attorney in this matter.
la6470
04-14 11:59 PM
Immigration: 'Birth Tourism' Industry Markets U.S. Citizenship Abroad - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&partner=yahoo)
A New Baby Boom? Foreign 'Birth Tourists' Seek U.S. Citizenship for Children
More Foreign Mothers Live Abroad to Give Birth on U.S. Soil, Debate Over 14th Amendment
Millions of foreign tourists visit the United States every year, and a growing number return home with a brand new U.S. citizen in tow. housands of legal immigrants, who do not permanently reside in the United States but give birth here, have given their children the gift of citizenship, which the U.S. grants to anyone born on its soil.
The number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers rose 53 percent between 2000 and 2006, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Total births rose 5 percent in the same period.
Among the foreigners who have given birth here, including international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities, are "birth tourists," women who travel to the United States with the explicit purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child.
Catering to the women is a nascent industry of travel agencies and hotel chains seeking to profit from the business. The Marmara Manhattan, a Turkish-owned luxury hotel on New York's City Upper East Side, markets birth tourism packages to expectant mothers abroad, luring more than a dozen pregnant guests and their families to the United States to give birth last year alone.
"What we offer is simply a one-bedroom suite accommodation for $7,750, plus taxes, for a month, with airport transfer, baby cradle and a gift set for the mother," Marmara Hotel spokeswoman Alexandra Ballantine said.
The hotel estimates the total cost of the package at $45,000.
Most women stay for two months, Ballantine said, and they make medical arrangements on their own. "Guests arrange and pay for these by themselves," she said of hospital costs that can approach $30,000.
For those with the means to pay, it's a small price to give a child the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, including the ability to travel freely to and from the United States, easy access to a U.S. education and a chance to start a life here.
"We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin [Texas] for our child's birth," Turkish mother Selin Burcuoglu told Istanbul's Hurriyet Daily News. "I don't want [my daughter] to deal with visa issues. American citizenship has so many advantages."
The greatest of those advantages may be the ability of the citizen child to later sponsor the legal immigration of his or her entire family permanently to this country, experts say.
The "birth tourism" industry, which is difficult to track and remains largely anecdotal, has been on the rise for years, according to government and participants reports. Of the 4,273,225 live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.
Many, but not all, of those mothers could be "birth tourists," experts say, although it is difficult to know for sure. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship, meaning births to illegal immigrants who live in the United States are counted in the overall total.
In recent years, many women have come from Mexico, South Korea, China and Taiwan, but the trend now extends to countries in Eastern Europe, such as Turkey, where as many as 12,000 children were born in the United States to Turkish parents since 2003 by one estimate.
The business of birth tourism is perfectly legal as long as immigrants are able to pay their own way.
The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care. "When determining if an individual will be allowed to enter the U.S., Customs and Border Protection officers take into consideration the date the child is due for delivery and the length of time the individual intends to stay in the U.S.," a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said.
Still, critics say the practice largely goes unchecked and exploits the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," the amendment reads.
"It's really an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment," said Jerome Corsi, a conservative author and columnist who has studied the issue of birth tourism. "Birthright citizenship is a loophole � [and] as it expands into a business for entrepreneurs in foreign countries who offer birth tourism packages, it markets the loophole to attract additional mothers to the U.S."
Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school wrote in the Jan. 11 Texas Review of Law & Politics that the authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words bestowing citizenship to illegal or visiting immigrants.
"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry," Graglia wrote of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has only addressed the issue once, ruling in 1898 that citizenship applies to U.S.-born children of legal immigrants who have yet to become citizens.
Some legislators, including U.S. Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., have called for revising the Constitution to forbid citizenship by birth alone and thereby end the attraction of birth tourists. But other politicos, from both sides of the aisle, say such an approach is politically unrealistic, not to mention unnecessary. "You just turn people down for being pregnant," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. "That should be the default position and then there'd have to be some very good reason for an exception."
Krikorian acknowledged that some people might find a ban on pregnant visitors "outrageous," but questions the rationality of the alternative.
"Do you really think that's right that somebody here visiting Disneyland should have their children be U.S. citizens, which they'll then inevitably use to get access to the U.S.?" he asked.
Krikorian and others call the offspring of birth tourists "anchor babies," because they can serve as a foothold for future legal immigration of an entire family.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said he sees the debate about birth tourists in a different light, however, noting that arguments about citizenship of children ignore a fundamental question of humanity.
"If we're a country that cares about families and family values, then why are we blaming the children for a decision the parents made. Their only decision was to take a first breath," he said.
"What is the State Department going to do? To fill out a visa application have a woman pee on a stick?"
The United States is one of the few remaining countries to grant citizenship to all children born on its soil. The United Kingdom, Ireland, India and Australia, among others, have since revised their birthright laws, no longer allowing every child born on their soil to get citizenship.
This news is not only ridiculous but also looks down on people from other country and the writer lives in the illusion that the US is the greatest country in the world.
People in other country have a life too (probably a better one) and I dont think any sane person will consider spending 15K to come to USA just to give birth and get the advantage of US citizenship. People in other countries are just like people in this country and any normal family will celebrate the birth of a kid and not worry about something as sickening as this.
After all USA is a great country but it is not the ONLY great country. Every country has their share of advantages and disadvantages.
A New Baby Boom? Foreign 'Birth Tourists' Seek U.S. Citizenship for Children
More Foreign Mothers Live Abroad to Give Birth on U.S. Soil, Debate Over 14th Amendment
Millions of foreign tourists visit the United States every year, and a growing number return home with a brand new U.S. citizen in tow. housands of legal immigrants, who do not permanently reside in the United States but give birth here, have given their children the gift of citizenship, which the U.S. grants to anyone born on its soil.
The number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers rose 53 percent between 2000 and 2006, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Total births rose 5 percent in the same period.
Among the foreigners who have given birth here, including international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities, are "birth tourists," women who travel to the United States with the explicit purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child.
Catering to the women is a nascent industry of travel agencies and hotel chains seeking to profit from the business. The Marmara Manhattan, a Turkish-owned luxury hotel on New York's City Upper East Side, markets birth tourism packages to expectant mothers abroad, luring more than a dozen pregnant guests and their families to the United States to give birth last year alone.
"What we offer is simply a one-bedroom suite accommodation for $7,750, plus taxes, for a month, with airport transfer, baby cradle and a gift set for the mother," Marmara Hotel spokeswoman Alexandra Ballantine said.
The hotel estimates the total cost of the package at $45,000.
Most women stay for two months, Ballantine said, and they make medical arrangements on their own. "Guests arrange and pay for these by themselves," she said of hospital costs that can approach $30,000.
For those with the means to pay, it's a small price to give a child the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, including the ability to travel freely to and from the United States, easy access to a U.S. education and a chance to start a life here.
"We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin [Texas] for our child's birth," Turkish mother Selin Burcuoglu told Istanbul's Hurriyet Daily News. "I don't want [my daughter] to deal with visa issues. American citizenship has so many advantages."
The greatest of those advantages may be the ability of the citizen child to later sponsor the legal immigration of his or her entire family permanently to this country, experts say.
The "birth tourism" industry, which is difficult to track and remains largely anecdotal, has been on the rise for years, according to government and participants reports. Of the 4,273,225 live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.
Many, but not all, of those mothers could be "birth tourists," experts say, although it is difficult to know for sure. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship, meaning births to illegal immigrants who live in the United States are counted in the overall total.
In recent years, many women have come from Mexico, South Korea, China and Taiwan, but the trend now extends to countries in Eastern Europe, such as Turkey, where as many as 12,000 children were born in the United States to Turkish parents since 2003 by one estimate.
The business of birth tourism is perfectly legal as long as immigrants are able to pay their own way.
The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care. "When determining if an individual will be allowed to enter the U.S., Customs and Border Protection officers take into consideration the date the child is due for delivery and the length of time the individual intends to stay in the U.S.," a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said.
Still, critics say the practice largely goes unchecked and exploits the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," the amendment reads.
"It's really an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment," said Jerome Corsi, a conservative author and columnist who has studied the issue of birth tourism. "Birthright citizenship is a loophole � [and] as it expands into a business for entrepreneurs in foreign countries who offer birth tourism packages, it markets the loophole to attract additional mothers to the U.S."
Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school wrote in the Jan. 11 Texas Review of Law & Politics that the authors of the 14th Amendment never would have imagined their words bestowing citizenship to illegal or visiting immigrants.
"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry," Graglia wrote of birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has only addressed the issue once, ruling in 1898 that citizenship applies to U.S.-born children of legal immigrants who have yet to become citizens.
Some legislators, including U.S. Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., have called for revising the Constitution to forbid citizenship by birth alone and thereby end the attraction of birth tourists. But other politicos, from both sides of the aisle, say such an approach is politically unrealistic, not to mention unnecessary. "You just turn people down for being pregnant," said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. "That should be the default position and then there'd have to be some very good reason for an exception."
Krikorian acknowledged that some people might find a ban on pregnant visitors "outrageous," but questions the rationality of the alternative.
"Do you really think that's right that somebody here visiting Disneyland should have their children be U.S. citizens, which they'll then inevitably use to get access to the U.S.?" he asked.
Krikorian and others call the offspring of birth tourists "anchor babies," because they can serve as a foothold for future legal immigration of an entire family.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said he sees the debate about birth tourists in a different light, however, noting that arguments about citizenship of children ignore a fundamental question of humanity.
"If we're a country that cares about families and family values, then why are we blaming the children for a decision the parents made. Their only decision was to take a first breath," he said.
"What is the State Department going to do? To fill out a visa application have a woman pee on a stick?"
The United States is one of the few remaining countries to grant citizenship to all children born on its soil. The United Kingdom, Ireland, India and Australia, among others, have since revised their birthright laws, no longer allowing every child born on their soil to get citizenship.
This news is not only ridiculous but also looks down on people from other country and the writer lives in the illusion that the US is the greatest country in the world.
People in other country have a life too (probably a better one) and I dont think any sane person will consider spending 15K to come to USA just to give birth and get the advantage of US citizenship. People in other countries are just like people in this country and any normal family will celebrate the birth of a kid and not worry about something as sickening as this.
After all USA is a great country but it is not the ONLY great country. Every country has their share of advantages and disadvantages.
No comments:
Post a Comment