Immigration Status in the U.S. and How it Affects Ability to Apply to Canada
Hi all,
It is sad when we allow our emotions to get the better part of us at times.
Sometimes, if we can only take a step back in order to look at issues from a narrower perspective rather than from a broader perspective, then we will realize the fallacy in certain arguments.
ABOUT OUT OF STATUS IMMIGRANTS
The life experiences of immigrants differ from one person to the other because immigrants do not just come from different countries, but also, they come from different socio-economic backgrounds, as well as from different political and religious systems.
I am not trying to make an excuse for immigrants who break a nation’s immigration laws; however, I am recognizing the fact that such immigrants must be faced with circumstances that would not allow them to utilize the option of returning to their home countries due to the differences I just mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
We all make conscious decisions. Going over the speed limit is a conscious decision and a violation of speeding laws, but it does not mean that the driver will always break, not just speed laws some place else, but other laws as well. Likewise, being out of status is a violation of immigration law – no doubt about that, but it does not mean that an out of status immigrant in one country will break an immigration law or any other law, if and when legally accepted and recognized by another country.
This is because once an out of status immigrant from Country X is legally accepted by Country Y, the immigrant is no longer faced with the yoke or burden that comes with being out of status such as not being allowed to work. So, as a legally recognized immigrant in Country Y, the out of status stigma is gone! The immigrant now has the opportunity to prove that he or she is law abiding without the yoke of illegal immigration hanging around the neck anymore – and the immigrant’s primary concern in Country Y is to maintain status until desired citizenship if the immigrant wishes it so.
It is also true that if we choose to break the law, we must dance to the tune of the consequences. With regard to the consequences, who then should be the judge? Me? You? Fellow Immigrants? Persons who are non-breakers of the law? Or, - the Immigration Officer representing the government?
Interestingly, governments do recognize that certain out of status immigrants are usually faced with obstacles that would pose an undue hardship on the immigrant if forced to go back to his or her home country; otherwise, the very government would not have created an exception to the rule by providing illegal immigrants leeway to redeem or acquire legal status through the processes of parole/advance parole as well as waivers from being barred from the U.S. Parole and waivers can be tough and in most cases denied because the applicants failed to meet their burdens by showing undue hardship or persecution, but if the government creates them, it demonstrates a show of tolerance from the government.
Therefore, if the government has these processes in place depicting tolerance on their part, I ask myself this question: who am I then, not to be tolerant of others but to portray myself as sanctimonious? Why should I judge others in the immigration process, when we are all judged by the immigration officers, and all it takes is just one small oversight, or omission, or a missing supporting document(s) that we never thought of /or didn’t even cross our minds, - for a decision to go in the unfavorable direction.
And so, let us not forget that even though immigration officers are supposed to use unbiased and objective discretion, it is a known fact, that some of them have been subjective and allowed their personal bias in making negative decisions. So, even if I have never broken an immigration law, and I happen to have a best case scenario, I still have to worry about a decision that might be based on some form of bias triggered by some little thing in my personal and /or character profile.
Here is a case in point:
JANUARY 30, 2007
Zuo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
The existence of English instruction at much lower cost in home countries should not be taken as determining the likelihood of the applicant to leave Canada following the authorized period of stay. The applicant enjoyed a high standard of living in China and his parents had significant savings to invest in his education. He provided a study plan that stated his intentions to improve his English skills in order to pursue graduate studies in Sports Journalism. This educational goal was tied to a plan to return to China and join his parents for a career in public service.
The officer erred by applying a subjective judgment on the financial value of English language training, which would certainly be superior when taught in an environment where English is the predominant language (Vancouver). By applying this determination without regard for the applicant’s ties to China,
the officer erred in rejecting his application on the grounds he was unlikely to leave after his authorized stay.
SOURCE:
http://www.canadavisa.com/immigration-case-studies.html]http://www.canadavisa.com/immigration-case-studies.html]http://www.canadavisa.com/immigration-case-studies.html
With all of the above in mind,
let us all exercise some form of restraint; and in everybody’s best interest,
we should strive to stay away from any form of labeling and name calling in order to maintain and sustain decorum within the forum.
Remember guys, that
a forum like this is all about exchanging ideas and
personal experiences,
respecting our differences, and
appreciating one another.
May we all succeed in our endeavors - peace!
Warm regards,
Libra.
