Children

[Brassa]

Hello
I am curious about any of you guys who met and married a LA woman that has children. Is it a difficult process to help bring the chilfdren to the USA and also i dont want to sound like i am making generalizations but i guess i`ll be guilty of it,It seems to me even NA women i have dated with children tend to be more stable since they have someone else they are responsible for. Have any of you guys noticed this trait in LA women.? Just any experiences you care to share would be appreciated and any info on immigration technicals for children as well would be interesting to hear about. In an effort to limit posts unless a follow up question or comment is needed i will thank you very much in advance.

[Pete E]

... in response to Children, posted by Brassa on Apr 2, 2003

Children under 18 can be included in the spousal or fiance visa,getting a visa themselves.It requires some additional paperwork,such as affidavid of support.
The big problem that can occur is you need the fathers signature EVERY time the kid leaves the country.If he is a problem,you got a problem.That is if he is listed as the father on the childs birth certificate.
Yes,women with children do seem more stable and responsible.The downside is they may be even more motivated to marry you even if they don't love you.
Good news,bad news story.A lady I know from Bogota got a work visa to work for a mortgage broker I know.She is a friend of his wife plus he did need the help,the mortgage industry is super busy right now.So you don't need a big company to sponsor.Even a small business will do.Got any friends?Bad news,her ex wouldn't sign for the child to leave Colombia so she had to leave it with her mother.

Pete

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: Children, posted by Pete E on Apr 2, 2003

Pete, not to be nitpicking, but this (21 vs the 18 that you said) actualy makes a difference in some cases, my fiancee's son, for instance. Here it is, direct from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (the new name for 'La Migra') web site:

Who is Eligible
U.S. citizens who will be getting married to a foreign national in the United States may petition for a fiancé(e) classification (K-1) for their fiancé(e). You and your fiancé(e) must be free to marry. This means that both of you are unmarried, or that any previous marriages have ended through divorce, annulment or death. You must also have met with your fiancé(e) in person within the last two years before filing for the fiancé(e) visa. This requirement can be waived only if meeting your fiancé(e) in person would violate long-established customs, or if meeting your fiancé(e) would create extreme hardship for you. You and your fiancé(e) must marry within 90 days of your fiancé(e) entering the United States.

You may also apply to bring your fiancé(e)'s unmarried children, who are under age 21, to the United States.

[Pete E]

... in response to Correction, posted by Michael B on Apr 2, 2003

I was going from memory.21 is good news because after the child is too old I think the mother has to wait untill she gets to be a citizen,5 years or so minimum to sponsor a child,and then there is a waiting period for an interview.Its 10 years wait for a sibling but less for a parent or child.
Seems there was a post a year or 2 ago when a child was on the edge of the age limit.I think the mother wanted her to come now because it would be much harder later.If the child lives here for 2 years,like my step son,they can become a permanent resident.He has a residency card that is good for 10 years but then he just gets another I think,unless he has become a citizen in the mean time.
Actually the time periods  for permanent residency on a spousal visa are:
1.3 months before the 2 year aniversary of entering the country you can file to make them permanent.Even if the couple are no longer together the wife can file on her own.If she can show "good intention" she could be approved without the husbands signature.
2.She gets an automatic one year extension while the case is being considered.She can use this to travel,my wife did.
In our case(California)we got a hearing 9 months after we filled,30 months after she entered the country.We had a set appointment at the INS.We walked right in,no wait,there is a separate line for appointments.We waited about 15 miniutes for the interview,which took about 30 miniutes.They just want a chance to question you and have you show evidence of living together.In our case 3 photo albums did the trick,plus we passed the believability test.
We were told she could file immediately to become a citizen and it would take 2-3 years.We didn't do that because her file would have gotten sent elsewhere and it would have delayed her getting her permanent card,which she got in the mail in a month or so,with my step sons.We took him to the interview but found it was not necessary.Better to be safe I thought.
This was the only time we ever had to go to the INS in the US.Again this was the spousal visa.What required effort was the direct filing approach at the US embassy in Bogota.I went once,she went 3 times total.2 times usually does it but we were missing some things.

Pete

[Brassa]

... in response to Re: Children, posted by Pete E on Apr 2, 2003

Thanks Pete. So you are saying that a woman with children could also arrive here if they get a company to sponsor with employment?

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Re: Children, posted by Brassa on Apr 2, 2003

Thats my understanding.I was told the lack of the fathers signature was the problem,not a visa issue.I could be wrong,but I think a person with a work visa gets to bring the immediate family,wife and children.Its a big issue here(San Jose)right now.People who lost their work visa due to high tech layoffs are supposed to leave the country.I don't know what the INS succesor is doing about this,they may be staying illegally.
A little aside,a guy who does computer work for me was laid off from Sun Microsystems.Some HB-1 work visa people did not get laid off.They are supposed to be here filling jobs that would otherwise go unfilled,not the case in high tech right now.He is involved in an official protest with the government.Also I would immagine if a suppervisor had a choice of laying off one of two persons,one who could get unemployment and the other who would have to leave the country,he might favor the person who would have to leave,
particularly if he was from the same country.Lots of these high tech workers are from India and alot of the management is from India.On the possitive side they have been instrumental in us being the high tech leader of the world.Some of you might have seen the 60 miniutes piece about the university in India that turns out some of the highest qualified graduates in the world.

Pete

[lswote]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Children, posted by Pete E on Apr 2, 2003

I would dispute that high tech workers from India have been instrumental in us being the high tech leader of the world.  We were doing just fine with American workers alone putting us in that position.  Indians, while technically capable and usually easy to work with, just do the work cheaper.  It is 90% about cost.  I work with many Indians, both in my workplace as well as with teams in India and they are slowly taking more and more jobs where I work.  I am becoming the token white guy.

In 1998 I made $100 an hour.  I have been at $50 an hour since 2000.  If I was to have to look for work now, I would be lucky to make $35 an hour.  Between the high tech slump and jobs being sent overseas or done by people on H-1 visas, wages will never be the same.

[Pete E]

... in response to Regarding your aside, posted by lswote on Apr 2, 2003

Bruce,
I'm sure it has a negative effect on salaries in anything less than a full employment situation.Plus I can immagine these guys working their butt off if the know if they lose the job they get layed off.Talk about an employee that is going to be loyal.My son works for Applied Materials.The employees are rated 1 to 5.If layoffs come,which they did,the 5's and 4's and some 3's are history.
I don't work in high tech myself.On the 60 minites piece on the Indian University a local Indian high tech business owner was interviewed.He came out with the opinion that what had been done would not have happened without the Indian contribution.I tend to believe it is true to some extent.There was some contribution that had to have an effect.It might have happened anyway,but I think it caused it to happen faster.I also tend to believe the Indian university piece.I don't think most US students are that motivated to study extremely hard.I think our engineering numbers have declined.Its alot of hard hard study most students would rather avoid I think.One of my engineer friends has a wife with a liberal arts degree she was in tech sales and making twice what he did,without busting her butt in school.I'm not sure she is still doing so well now.
But yes,now that there is an over supply of tech workers I'm sure the visa workers are hurting the job and wage situation.And that was not supposed to be the deal.They came in under the argument that the jobs could not be filled otherwise and now of course the are taking jobs from citizens.
I'm sure the companies like the competition.I know the local tech companies were lobbying hard 2 or 3 years ago to up the quotas alot more and had all the local politicians on board.I would think there should not be any high tech workers coming in under this now,but there are.I saw a web site that had job offers with sponsorship for foriegn tech workers.It looked like they were looking for code writters mostly.Maybe there are SOME jobs they can't fill,but I'm suspicious.A very political deal I think.
The other catagory,and a true shortage I think was nurses.If you foriegn girlfriend is a nurse she is in in a flash.
I would not be too happy myself if I was being hurt by it.I know my laid off friend was sure p!ssed.
Another little aside.Alot of our local laid off tech workers are trying real estate,my field.Mostly they are going with big companies who's ideas of how you get in to the business has a very high discouragement and drop out rate,but it might be a reason I am not getting the number of new clients I used to.Maybe I need to switch endevours.Hmm.Oh hell,maybe I will just retire for real and move to a warm latin country.When the going gets tough,the smart split.

Pete

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Regarding your aside, posted by Pete E on Apr 3, 2003

Make that if they lose the job they have to leave the country.

[DallasSteve2]

... in response to Re: Re: Regarding your aside, posted by Pete E on Apr 3, 2003

[This message has been edited by DallasSteve2]

Before Patrick deletes this thread for being totally off-topic I'd like to chime in.

The theory on foreign high tech workers sounds nice.  They bring their skills.  Our country benefits.  

The reality, I think, is much different.  The corporations that hire them (that is, their top officers and owners) benefit with lower costs and hence higher profits and bonuses.  The general public sees their paycheck reduced.  The general public doesn't have a lobby in Washington.

My theory: If we hadn't brought in so many H1B workers the high-tech bubble would have been much more subdued because of a shortage of high-tech workers.  Hence the following crash would have been much less severe.  Not only did we expand too fast, but now we have many more workers still here looking for fewer jobs.  The reality is that most of those visa workers will never leave.  The feds are too busy with other issues to care about something that really matters to us financially like deporting them.

The high tech companies loved H1Bs because it cut their payrolls.  The airlines loved it because of all the international travel.  The universities love their foreign students on student visas.  Lots of industries have benefited from the flood of foreigners.  The rest of us get to pay for rebuilding New York and destroying Iraq.

Steve