By Jordan Arellano for YES! Media. Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Tennessee News Service, reporting for the YES! Media-Public News Service Collaboration.

As a child born and raised in middle-class white America, I never expected I would know much about emigrating to the United States. "Green card marriage" is a term I only learned from watching the 2009 rom-com "The Proposal." The term is a colloquial reference to marriage between a citizen and non-citizen for the purpose of conferring legal residency status, and the movie depicts it through an enemies-to-lovers trope between a domineering Canadian boss who convinces her ambitious American assistant to help her obtain a green card via a phony marriage.

Twelve years after the film's release, when my husband and I were navigating the challenges of his green card application, many of my friends brought it up, joking that it was their only reference for legal immigration via marriage.

The fact that this movie stands as one of America's cultural touchstones for immigration is unquestionably problematic, largely because of the implication that "green card" and "marriage" are only paired in fraudulent relationships. The reality of marriage to an immigrant partner is far different from what films depict, and for some couples, nearly impossible.

My husband and I met on a dating app in 2019. I spent much of our early get-to-know-you months learning about the beauty and diversity of India, the country where he grew up. He was in his 20s when he moved to the U.S. for a master's degree that eventually led him to the job and city where we met. He also shared his anxieties with me over the news of his H-1B application, the work-petitioned visa he needed to legally remain in the U.S. now that he was out of school.

We were thrilled and relieved when he was granted the visa a few months later, offering some security to our growing relationship. But the start of the COVID-19 pandemic quickly shattered our illusion of safety when all his department co-workers, except for him, were suddenly laid off. If he were to lose his job too, his H-1B would quickly become invalid, requiring him to return to India.

It was a sobering reminder that, while my partner was thankfully still employed, we were entirely dependent upon his employment status not only as a steady source of income, but also for his legal resident status in the country that we both called home. Insecurity, I was learning, is the norm for immigrants. Education, work experience, abiding by governing rules-none of these things offers true security. That's where a green card comes in.

Having a green card, or legal permanent resident (LPR) status, means that as long as one has not been convicted for specific criminal offenses, one can live in the U.S. indefinitely. It offers the most secure legal status, second only to citizenship. Immigrants can earn it in a variety of ways, many of which can take years. One of the quickest ways to obtain LPR is through a family or marriage sponsorship.

Thankfully for my partner and me, it didn't take long to know that we wanted our relationship to last for life. After two years of dating, we got engaged and then married in 2021. The next step was submitting our LPR petition with the hope it would be accepted, despite rumors about pandemic federal staff shortages leading to green card delays. But we had no other options and had to work within an immigration system that processes and accepts about 1 million people per year as legal residents.

From start to finish, our application process lasted about a year. It was a tedious, though mostly doable, process that involved answering hundreds of questions and tracking down family documents. The trickiest part was the fluctuating rigidity of the requirements. Sometimes there would be a request for a specific document, and sometimes it would feel completely arbitrary. Would photos of our wedding be convincing evidence that our marriage was real? How about our joint bank accounts or a copy of our co-signed lease? We had to guess, hope, and submit.

Some couples opt to hire immigration lawyers to help navigate the unpredictable nature of the process, which often results in thousands of dollars in legal fees. We chose to instead prepare the application ourselves, and then briefly consulted with a lawyer to review the documents to give us some added peace of mind.

Over $2,000 in fees later, our application was in the hands of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It was now up to the government to assess if we were in a real relationship. Our life was on hold, with no predictable timeline, and no guarantee of the result.

It was while we were waiting for a decision from the government that I met Lauren Krupp, an American citizen living in the U.S. and working as a newborn care specialist. Krupp diverted much of her salary to continue the process of petitioning for a green card for her husband, Doriel Acosta. It was through her that I learned the legal immigration process for marriage-based green cards could be even more difficult for some couples.

The two met when Krupp was visiting Cuba on a humanitarian trip in 2017. Two years later, they got married in Cuba, knowing they would continue their long-distance relationship as they worked to secure Acosta's green card. Despite poor diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, they were hopeful. Neither could have predicted then that it would take them three and a half years of bureaucratic challenges and more than $20,000 to be together.

First, their application was submitted incorrectly by a third-party contractor, and was left unprocessed for nine months with no notifications. Krupp eventually contacted an immigration officer from her senator's office who was able to verify that some documentation was missing.

Shortly thereafter, the COVID-19 pandemic brought Cuban diplomatic processes to a standstill. Since the closure of the U.S. embassy in Cuba following Havana Syndrome in 2017, Cubans have been forced to fly 1,000 miles to the U.S. embassy in Guyana to process their visas. But Krupp says the Guyanese embassy was closed for almost nine months during the pandemic.

Finally, after pandemic restrictions were lifted in March 2022, Acosta and Krupp made it to Guyana for their immigration interview. Even after being told that his green card was approved, Acosta had to remain in Guyana for another 45 days while his visa was processed. In all, the couple paid $12,500 just for the travel and accommodation during his unexpectedly long stay in Guyana.

Finally, after all the expense, the waiting, the effort, and the distance, Acosta hugged his wife hello on U.S. soil this past May. It was the same month my husband and I went to our own immigration interview where he was granted his green card.

Krupp reflected on how she's been feeling since being reunited with her husband. She says, "You find yourself feeling things that you don't expect; sometimes a wave of grief for the time that was lost. Or sometimes feeling like you're undeserving of it. ... We only waited three and a half years. Some people wait 10, 15 years, or never are reunited at all." I'm left feeling much of the same.

The one emotion that united all four of us-and possibly all immigrants and the citizens who petition on their behalf-is an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. Despite Krupp and I being U.S. citizens, we had to place our trust in opaque, bureaucratic systems to judge our marriages and allow us to live with the person we love. Despite their eligibility, our partners had to trust they were being judged objectively and fairly. The positive outcomes we experienced are not guaranteed for all applicants.

USCIS prioritizes family-petitioned green cards and has granted about 480,000 annually in recent years. Processing time averages between 10 and 17 months, although this was much longer at the start of the pandemic due to presidential green card bans and federal worker shortages. Immediate relatives, like spouses, have a faster processing time than other family members, like parents, children, or siblings. Overall, a family-petitioned green card has a higher chance of acceptance than any other type, averaging an 11% denial rate.

This doesn't even include the millions of other forms of emigration that are not as highly prioritized. The DACA program has become infamously insecure for recipients, and the yearly figures of how many refugee and asylum-seekers are accepted changes based on the current presidential administration. These challenges lead to many undocumented people risking border crossings, family separation, and deportation rather than accepting the possibility of being forgotten or denied by the American immigration system. The Pew Research Center claims that 23% of all immigrants in the U.S., about 10.5 million people, are undocumented.

It's clear that compared to many, our immigration story was not only easy, but was also extremely privileged. We were left feeling gratitude for our security and deep frustration at how broken the system is for everyone.

There is plenty of work still to be done to support legal immigration. With so many shifting variables and unknowns, there is great need for more support and resources for couples petitioning for residency from all nations. But through our own immigration journey, and hearing Krupp and Acosta's story, I learned about some of the existing efforts to help mixed-status couples emigrate through green card petitions.

One of the places where Krupp and Acosta found reassurance was through online communities. Krupp says, "We joined a support group on Facebook that was about Cuban family reunification. We got so much more helpful, actual information from that group than we ever did from anywhere else. ... It was just other people going through the same process, telling us what they had learned and observed."

My husband and I also found the greatest support from friends who had gone through the application process. They shared tips and tricks, and even connected us with a lawyer who could review our application and answer our questions. Depending on one's budget, there are many immigration lawyers and visa experts who can help couples navigate the process. Though from experience, we suggest choosing experts based on recommendations from people you trust. Naturally, lawyers cost money-something that disadvantages lower-income applicants.

Elected representatives can also help-indeed, most federal representatives and senators offer help with federal agencies via their websites. Krupp highlighted the help of an immigration officer at her state senator's office who was able to inquire on their behalf. Using state and federal resources like a senator's office is a great way for petitioners to advocate for themselves.

Ultimately, what is needed is a change in the immigration processes so all people applying are treated humanely. For example, FWD.us, a nonprofit working at the congressional level to reform the marriage petition process, points out that green cards are sometimes wasted due to systematic "roll over" protocols. The organization is pushing Congress to reform the system so that an additional 220,000 green cards would become available, which in turn would help reduce the backlog of applicants.

In good news for Cuban petitioners, the Biden administration has recently increased staff at the Havana embassy, raising the possibility that petitioners could soon process their visas in Cuba instead of traveling to Guyana. And, this year, USCIS announced a plan to increase the efficiency of immigration processing, reducing wait times for in-country couples to a maximum of six months.

We all know rom-coms aren't real life, especially the ones about green card marriages. But Krupp described her love story perfectly, saying, "Just because you had the weird opportunity to fall in love with someone from another country, and you have this different path, in the end, you just want to be normal. The end goal is just normal things, like stability, comfort, and time together."

Jordan Arellano wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Arellano is a freelance journalist writing about the intersections of art, culture and travel, and her work has been published in Edible Memphis and the Daily Memphian. She has a master's in international development and is interested in how art and justice intersect. She currently lives in Memphis, Tennessee.

Legislation in Albany would create the first right to counsel for people in immigration court.

The Access to Representation Act would provide immigrants the right to an attorney in their New York immigration cases, ending the tendency to represent themselves if they cannot afford one.

Estimates show a backlog of more than 330,000 immigration court cases, and fewer than half have attorneys. Studies show without legal counsel, migrants are less likely to remain in the U.S.

Marlene Galaz, director of immigrant rights policy for the New York Immigration Coalition, described what the bill would do.

"It has a six-year ramp-up to start implementing and building infrastructure," Galaz outlined. "Having a pipeline between law schools for law students to go into immigration practice, and getting to nonprofits and so on."

Galaz noted most opposition centers around the $150 million to fund the program but pointed out the total expenditure is less than 1% of the state's $229 billion budget. She added anti-immigrant rhetoric has also damaged support for the bill. Currently, it is in the state Senate Finance Committee.

The New York City Comptroller's office said enacting the bill would benefit the state financially. It could keep about 53,000 people from being deported, which would result in almost $8.5 billion in local, state and federal taxes over the next 30 years.

Galaz emphasized the influx of migrants has saturated the court system, leading to what could have been an avoidable backlog.

"I firmly believe that if these investments had been made when we first asked for them, I believe, like, three years ago, then we wouldn't be struggling," Galaz contended. "We would have had the infrastructure built to address an increase in welcoming our newest neighbors."

A Vera Institute survey showed 93% of New Yorkers across party lines and regions support access to attorneys for all people, including those in immigration court, and government-funded attorneys for them.


get more stories like this via email

Story has been updated to reflect late-night 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.(8:01 a.m. MST, Mar. 20, 2024)


The U.S. Supreme Court handed Texas Gov. Greg Abbott a big but temporary win Tuesday in his battle to stop the flow of migrants crossing the Texas-Mexico border.

Late Tuesday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals put the law known as Senate Bill 4 on hold again. It would give state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants as they cross into the U-S.

The Biden administration argued that the law would interfere with federal immigration law and is unconstitutional.

David Coale, an appellate attorney in Dallas, said if the state gets the authority to make arrests, he thinks it will move with caution.

"I think that Texas will want to make some very high-profile moves under this statute," Coale predicted. "But they also don't want to potentially expose themselves to massive civil rights liability if it turns out they're wrong."

Under SB-4, crossing the border illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail. The appeals court hears oral arguments in the case today. Meanwhile, a Mexican government official said his country won't accept migrants deported under SB-4.

The Supreme Court justices did not issue a reason for allowing the law to go into effect and there's been no clear timetable for how or when Texas will start enforcing it. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a similar law in Arizona, saying an impasse in Congress over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

Coale noted if the law is ultimately upheld, it would give each state the right to make its own immigration laws.

"If you give Texas a pass, you know, New York will have a different policy and California will have a policy and Montana will have a policy," Coale pointed out. "And they will not be consistent."

All six of the court's conservative justices agreed with the decision to allow the law to take effect - a ruling that, at least for now, was in effect for only a few hours.


get more stories like this via email

Both chambers of the New York state Legislature have included coverage for all legislation in their respective budgets.

The bills would update the state's Affordable Care Act Section 1332 waiver to make coverage available for all income-eligible people, regardless of their immigration status. Studies show half of likely undocumented immigrants and around 18% of lawfully present immigrants are uninsured.

Arline Cruz Escobar, health programs director for the group Make the Road New York, said the challenges stemming from a lack of coverage make life harder for the undocumented population.

"A lot of these preventable illnesses are going undetected and so, unfortunately, people are getting sicker," Cruz Escobar pointed out. "It also means that a lot of people who currently are sick aren't able to actually access the medication that they need."

One of the biggest obstacles to passing the bill is anti-immigrant rhetoric spreading across the country. However, many groups across the state submitted testimony declaring their support and need for this bill.

Cruz Escobar argued the growing migrant population in places such as New York City makes the bill more necessary. The New York City Comptroller's Office found the number of migrants not living in New York City but still in its care grew from 276 last May to more than 2,100 last September.

Beyond helping immigrants, supporters said the bill will benefit the state financially. The New York City Comptroller's office estimates passing coverage for all will generate $710 million in annual benefits.

Cruz Escobar described other elements of the bill.

"We have also included in our legislation language around giving the Commissioner of Health the ability to set up guardrails to ensure that for this expansion we don't over-cede the amount of surplus that's available."

She added the commissioner would also ensure there would be no additional cost through state dollars. Estimates showed New York State plans to spend more than $4 billion between 2022 and 2026 on issues related to migrants. Current spending is estimated at around $690 million.


get more stories like this via email