arghhh! affidavit for tourist visa, a quest.

[Guest]

DB,

 

 

 

Aside: I was under the impression that America is pretty much already at zero-population growth, if you don't count immigration.

 

 

 

On to the main point:

 

I agree that limiting unskilled workers is wise, but don't see a clear reason why we should prohibit higher skilled workers.

 

 

 

First we have to decide whether a nation has the right to pick and choose who we wish to allow in. There are certain criteria which probably are offensive to use in the decision, e.g. race, maybe sex and perhaps a few others; but skill level and education level should certainly be valid. E.g., we should be able to decide at a given point in time if we want to let in skilled workers, unskilled workers, both or neither. Depending on our needs the ratios could change over time.

 

 

 

It is in our best interests to allow in those that make our society better. Most of the time allowing unlimited unskilled labor into the country is an immediate bad thing for much of the population and ultimately bad for the vast majority of us.

 

 

 

It is true that in theory we could train all the high-skilled workers we need, but the reality is that we often do not have enough. Adding more high-skilled workers not only makes our society more productive overall, but adding better educated and more highly paid workers improves our society overall (IMO). The bar for a skilled worker might be raised or lowered depending on our needs.

 

 

 

There may be some individuals who are harmed by our immigration policies, but they are arguably better for our society as a whole.

[Guest]

Post deleted by DoxyBlue

[Guest]

[color:blue]The best reason I can give you is because any high-skill job can be taught. If you look at the example of IT contractors and employees from India, is there really a shortage of Americans to do these jobs?color=blue>

 

 

 

Perhaps not at this point, but this was the case 10-2 years ago. Certainly if you paid enough you could have filled any job, but that would have pulled a skilled worker from another job and they would have had to pay more all down the chain. You end up not doing much for growing our economy quickly in the direction we want to go.

 

 

 

One of the advantages of growing through immigrant labor is that when we hit a bump we can more quickly downsize (by not granting new visas, or not renewing them).

 

 

 

[color:blue]If not, the employers need to be re-incentived to hire American. Or if there really is a shortfall, then employers should be incented to retrain people in related fields whose training is outdated or obsoleted by technological advancement.color=blue>

 

 

 

Employers are incented to hire american (if the system works properly). It is often an expensive and long process to obtain the proper visas. If an american were available at the same wage, most honest companies would hire him/her instead.

 

 

 

[color:blue]This last could revolutionize higher education in some ways. Your obsolete 45 year-old mainframe engineer doesn't need a second liberal arts education, he needs current skills.color=blue>

 

 

 

There certainly should be programs to retrain people that want it. However, the problem is that most young americans and even the older skilled workers don't care enough and don't try that hard. Their lives are cushy enough and they have a decent safety net so they don't take it upon themselves to get the education they need to excel.

 

 

 

I have a hard time feeling that bad for a 45 year-old mainframe programmer who loses his job after mainframes have been dying for the last 20 years and he has done nothing to make his skills more relevant for today.

 

 

 

[color:blue]Domestic unskilled labour maps too well to being at or below the poverty line. So if you want to fight poverty, IMO, you need to stop bringing in more competition for the very people whose lot you want to improve. If you want a peaceful society, you need to improve the lot of the less well off.color=blue>

 

 

 

The poverty line is completely arbitrary. I think american society is rich enough that we can afford to pay good wages for even the lowest skilled job and that is why we can and should control immigration for unskilled workers. But if we paid half of what we do now we would still get millions of people on our doorsteps asking for those jobs and willingly being "poor" americans.

[pattaya127]

agree with you (again!). But isn't the motto of most entrepreneurs along the lines of not having governement telling them how to run their business? States can provide the incentives, possibly, but how do you breed loyalty on the part of american Cos to the american workforce in a global environment? If the last 20 years have taught us something, and the last Enron debacle, is that the american worker counts very little in their big scheme.

 

PS: feeling guilty of being totally LOS off-topic. I just could not refrain to tellyou i agreed with you......

[Grabii]

pattaya,

 

 

 

In reply to:

---

just thinking about the irony of the INS sending green cards to terrorists who already killed thousands of people

---

 

 

 

When did the INS do this?

 

 

 

Regards, JEff

[pattaya127]

It was in the News at the end of last month. I think 2 of them got confirmation of their lawful status in the USA. Either as student or resident. Just bureaucracy at work....

[Grabii]

pattaya,

 

 

 

In reply to:

---

It was in the News at the end of last month. I think 2 of them got confirmation of their lawful status in the USA. Either as student or resident. Just bureaucracy at work....

---

 

 

 

That's better. Notice of their change from visitor to student status was finally, belatedly, sent to the flight school they had attended. The mail room was an outsourced operation, which is not to say that the INS doesn't need to manage its subcontractors more effectively.

 

 

 

The change of status was not granted after the fact, and they were not granted Permanent Resident status as you first posted.

 

 

 

Regards, JEff

[Grabii]

pattaya,

 

 

 

In reply to:

---

Do affidavits of support (form I-134) help get a tourist visa if one's girl friend has little to show as far as income and bank accounts go.

---

 

 

 

According to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) one thing (perhpaps it's the only thing) a US host can do in support of a foreigner's B2 visa application is offer financial support for the trip. In this regard, supplying an I-134 would be helpful.

 

 

 

The reason the consulate wants information about a visa applicant's income and bank account is not to show ties to their homeland. It's to show that the applicant can afford the proposed visit. They do not want a visitor to have to work while in the US (it's illegal) and they do not want the visitor to get stranded in the US with no money for expenses or the return trip home.

 

 

 

If the applicant does not have sufficient resources of their own to afford the trip, the consulate will accept financial sponsorship from a host. In which case the applicant must show sufficiently strong ties to the sponsor. Again, providing an I-134 would help to demonstrate this.

 

 

 

Regards, JEff

[Lamock Chokaprret]

According to the instructions, you cannot guarantee another person's return to Thailand. That to me sounds like this I-134 (whatever it is) is toilet paper. That said, I should point out that within the last month my Thai g/f with no job, no bank accounts, no assets just got a 10 year US tourist visa. How did I do it? There is another thread I wrote on this subject right after it happened.

 

 

 

In our situation, we have a joint bank account (not really but close) and I work in Thailand. Her reason to return? I live and work in Thailand. Didn't use an I-134, didn't even have my work permit yet (new job - they accepted a letter from the company saying they'd applied). Visa complete in two days, no interview even.

 

 

 

So anybody here that says it can't be done simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Grabii]

Lamock,

 

 

 

"According to the instructions, you cannot guarantee another person's return to Thailand."

 

 

 

Correct.

 

 

 

"That to me sounds like this I-134 (whatever it is) is toilet paper."

 

 

 

Wrong. The I-134 guarantees that there is someone to pay the expenses, which is also a consideration, albeit a lesser consideration than the return home issue. An I-134 may not be necessary, the consulate often accepts a simple letter from a sponsor, but in case of doubt the I-134 might help.

 

 

 

"That said, I should point out that within the last month my Thai g/f with no job, no bank accounts, no assets just got a 10 year US tourist visa. How did I do it? .... Her reason to return? I live and work in Thailand."

 

 

 

This approach worked for my girlfriend also, back in 1998 / 1999. Good for the expats, but doesn't help the visitors who would like their girlfriends to have a chance to see the USA.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards, JEff