June 25, 2006

Good Teachers/Bad Immigration Policy

One of the resons that our nation's immigration laws get violated are situations like these, in which bureaucratic regulations make it nearly imposible to adjust the status of those on temporary visas who wish to stay in the US -- even if they have married US citizens and have become productive members of their communities.

And in this article, we find that students in two schools could lose excellent teachers. The problem is that they came to this country on cultural exchange visas that require they return to their home country for two years.

Most foreigners who marry U.S. citizens while on a visitor visa can adjust their status without leaving the country. But if they overstay a J-1 visa -- the three-year kind Chamorro has -- they must leave the United States to apply for a family member visa even if they marry a citizen, said Michael Defensor, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On rare occasions, the U.S. grants waivers -- for example, if the return home would constitute extreme hardship to the family. Chamorro has argued that her husband, a freelance photographer, would suffer hardship in Colombia because of the country's high crime rate and poor pay for photographers. But Defensor said an extreme hardship would have to be something such as a medical condition that cannot be treated in the home country or a situation where a person's life would be in danger.

Chamorro came to the United States through the North Carolina-based Visiting International Faculty Program, which brings teachers from around the world to work in U.S. schools for up to three years. Teachers with the program sign a pledge to return to their country for at least two years afterward.

Most return to their countries within three years, said Ned Glascock, a spokesman for the program. "The idea is that teachers and others who qualify come for three years to teach about their cultures and then return home and share everything they've learned," he said. "The cultural exchange goes full circle, and they become cultural ambassadors for our country."

Since the program began in 1987, it has brought 7,000 teachers to the United States, he said, adding that "99.9 percent" of them have returned to their countries. "We're very clear with our teachers that it's not a program that's intended as a means of immigration to the United States," he said.

And i agree with the program and its rationale -- but the reality is that there are some people in that program who do marry US citizens. It is not a large number, and the requirement that these couples split or relocate abroad is draconian, given the myriad methods for adjusting the status of other immigrants -- including amnesty programs for illegal aliens.

Besides, at a time when teachers in math and science are at critical shortage levels, what are we doing sending back qualified ones who want to stay?

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You've said in many other posts that someone who breaks immigration law is, by definition, a criminal and should be treated as such. So... what's the difference here?

Posted by: John at Mon Jun 26 08:32:13 2006 (YId1A)

2 The difference is, if you go and read the article, is that these individuals have not broken any law. Each has stayed on an extension of their visa while they attempt to adjust their immigration status to a permanent residency status. They are trying to follow the rules and jump the hoops to stay, NOT jumping the border without paperwork and demanding amnesty.

If you don't recognize the difference...

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 26 09:15:02 2006 (CDJOJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
7kb generated in CPU 0.0058, elapsed 0.0139 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0103 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]