Appologies if this subject has been broached before; the search engine is not my friend today.
Specifically, how difficult would it be for a child who was brought to the US illegally by their parents when they were small to apply for citizenship when they turn 18? Is their only option to join the military? Is that still even an option? Or would their only choice be to return to a country they haven’t seen in 17 years and hope they can get some sort of visa?
I’m having a hard time finding internet info that isn’t biased one way or the other.
It’s a common misconception that a person can obtain U.S. permanent residency (and in most cases, you have to be a permanent resident for at least 5 years before you are eligible for citizenship) just by applying and waiting in line long enough.
You would need to have a means of qualifying for citizenship, either through a qualifying family relationship, a job (usually a highly skilled professional job, which is unlikely in the case of an 18-year-old), or one of the less common ways, such as being granted political asylum (and proving a well-founded fear of persecution is also going to be an uphill battle in the case of someone who hasn’t set foot in his/her native country since early childhood, unless he/she belongs to a group which is commonly persecuted in the native country).
I know there are expedited naturalization procedures for U.S. military personnel, but last I checked, one had to be in the U.S. legally in order to enlist in the military, as well as meeting all the other criteria, so that isn’t going to be an option for someone in the situation you describe. His/her best shot is likely going to be obtaining a qualifying family relationship, either by marriage, or if a close blood relative (parent most likely, in this case) obtains permanent residency or citizenship and petitions for the child. (More info on that process here.
I suppose there’s a vague possibility the person might be eligible to apply for the Diversity Visa lottery, or for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal, but those are discretionary applications, and the burden of proof for the latter two of these, which is established by legal precedent, is really, really high.
P.S. On the bright side, unlawful presence in the U.S. while under the age of 18 is not counted against a person for future visa applicaiton purposes, but as a practical matter someone in the situaiton you describe is going to have a really, really hard time obtaining any kind of nonimmigrant visa, because he/she has to overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant, and the visa officer reviewing the application is going to have a hard time believing that the applicant is going to leave the U.S. at the end of the authorized period of stay.
If he crosses his fingers, and the war in Iraq continues the DREAM act may pass?
"The proposed Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act is targeted at children of undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. for more than five years but not born here. They would get legal status and become eligible for citizenship if they graduate from high school, stay out of trouble and either attend college for two years or serve two years in the armed forces. This bill, introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), drew 48 cosponsors in the Senate last year but failed to get a floor vote. It is likely to be reintroduced soon. "
Thanks for the info, Eva Luna. I was hoping it wasn’t as bleak as that. So a kid in this situation would basically either have to live the rest of their lives under the radar or go back to a country they hardly know on the slim hope they can get a student visa, which is unlikely for the reason you mention. Crappy.
That’s the idea. I’m one of the plantiffs in the California Tuition Lawsuit. A lot of the people against the lawsuit argue that what few illegal immigrants who benefit from the tuition loophole are children who were brought into the country illegally and have been living here under the radar for the vast majority of their lives. Therefore, they are more Californian, and more deserving of tuition breaks, than a US citizen who comes to the state just a few years prior. Moreover, since the kid didn’t have a choice of whether to be brought or not, the government shouldn’t punish them for the sins of their fathers, so to speak.
Wouldn’t both be illegal? My original understanding had them all under the radar but seems like one’s as good as another.
Under this theory, no, both parents would be non-citizens
This might be the case for some, but not all. Let’s stick with the idea that there is no blatent persecution threat since that is the more difficult situation to solve.
The following doesn’t matter much to my GQ, but here are the reasons I joined the lawsuit:
It makes no sense to have a state law that directly contradicts a federal law on a subject that falls within federal control.
It makes no sense to extend benefits to non-citizens if the state can’t afford to extend those same benefits to citizens. Especially on matters that are not critical to survival like higher education.
The more typical solution would be the acquisition of a qualifying family relationship, such as one of the qualifying relatives obtaining U.S. citizenship or permanent residence - such as if a parents marries a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, or obtains permanent residence through a job. (The second being much more unlikely than the first in most cases; there are long green card backlogs now even for professional jobs, and much more so for unskilled or semi-skiled jobs. You can see backlogs in various categories here. ) Or the child grows up and maries a U.S. citizen or permanent resident him/herself.