PR processing time

[BBCWatcher]

That's a renewal of the reentry permit (REP), though. There's no obligation to renew a REP. You can stay in Singapore as a PR without a REP for the rest of your life if you wish.

[ecureilx]

That's a renewal of the reentry permit (REP), though. There's no obligation to renew a REP. You can stay in Singapore as a PR without a REP for the rest of your life if you wish.

Yes, it used to be the case before. Things been changing of late.

Do you have any official link to confirm that you can stay without renewing REP ?

Don't statically say I am wrong, please. And it will be a simple concept for the non-scientists or those who aren't hyper intelligent- i.e. a majority of those who read this forum, if you point to the correct link.

[ecureilx]

.. that Singapore PR is actually conditional upon employment and therefore, is actually a form of work permit as opposed to true permanent residency.

Unless the spouse is SC .... No job, not enough CPF in ordinary A/C for extended time period, be prepared to be sent packing.

[x9200]

I wonder if (or perhaps how significantly) this is reflected for different countries for granting/refusing their citizens the US visas.

I'd say the existence of the Fourteenth Amendment has practically zero impact on U.S. visa policies. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and the U.S. has had incredibly varied visa policies in the 146+ years since then. There are much, much bigger factors influencing visa policies.

Or is it self-regulating based on what you mentioned above (the medical expenses)?

That's part of it.

To be clear, the immigration status of the mother giving birth in the United States doesn't matter, with the exception when both parents are official diplomats. Whether the mother is staying legally or illegally is irrelevant for these purposes: the child is born a U.S. citizen. There are approximately 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States (2014 estimate), and that's not counting legal and illegal visitors.

In practice, in reality, U.S. citizenship is available to children of diplomats as well. State and local governments register births in the U.S., not the federal government, and they don't even ask about diplomatic status and have no real way of checking anyway. It's such a rare exception to birthright citizenship that most local officials don't even know about it. Many diplomats, particularly from developing countries, quietly accept the default of U.S. citizenship for their children born in the U.S.

Note that a U.S. citizen child cannot sponsor a foreign parent for immigration to the United States until the child reaches age 21. Then there's a long waiting period after application of approximately one decade, and also the child must be a qualified financial sponsor (or have a qualified co-sponsor). In other words, this is not a realistic, easy route to legal U.S. immigration for the parent -- and that parent cannot easily become a burden to the state anyway since any such burden is privately collectible from the sponsor(s). Some critics have called these children "anchor babies," but that's just political rubbish. Thirty plus years is a long, long time. It's not an anchor, it's a very long and very thin rubber band that often breaks.

Note also that U.S. hospitals must, by law, accept and treat patients and attend to their emergency care needs regardless of their ability to pay. That doesn't mean the hospital has to provide the private maternity suite with massage service -- far from it. And the hospital will do everything it legally can to collect on its bills. But there are some mothers who deliver in the U.S. and cannot pay, and they and their babies are still cared for. The hospital then has to write off the costs (and pass them along in the form of higher bills on paying patients) but may get some government funding to help.

Add that all together and there are really two basic categories of "birth tourism": (1) women, mostly crossing the border from Mexico, mostly without medical insurance and without the ability to pay, who give birth in the U.S. (planned, semi-planned, or unplanned); (2) wealthy women who explicitly arrange their births in the U.S., perhaps even with private wards and other special perks. Neither cohort is all that large numerically. I think also there's an increasing realization that U.S. citizenship includes not only rights and privileges but also obligations -- tax and financial reporting, for example. There is some anecdotal evidence that the already low level of U.S. birth tourism is falling a bit. Wealthy women (many from China) have several choices as well.

There are some very rare cases when mothers wait a little too long, and their babies decide it's time to emerge. There are a few women who have given birth aboard airliners bound for North America. When that happens, believe it or not there's an investigation to determine exactly when the birth occurred and where the airplane was located. If the airplane was within U.S. airspace -- the space above U.S. territory including its territorial waters -- at the moment the baby was born, then the baby was born a U.S. citizen and receives his/her paperwork. If not, then that baby just missed citizenship. Though rare, this happens often enough because there are somewhat higher costs to stay longer on a birth vacation -- housing, food, etc. Some women are tempted to cut it too close, and of course some babies arrive prematurely. This is all very risky, of course, but it happens occasionally.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Interesting. I think what is probably a single most impactful factor is the inability to sponsor the parents, so the wanna be immigrants just can not use their newborns as the stepping stones. Costs would probably be more manageable or prevented - I am pretty sure some of the parents to be would take the risk to deliver at home, with a midwife, nurse or even without any assistance.

[x9200]

.. that Singapore PR is actually conditional upon employment and therefore, is actually a form of work permit as opposed to true permanent residency.

Yep, for me, it's kind of PEP+ and not much more.
Yes, you can still stay in SG after the REP is expired but the nature of this social construct is again for you to be able to prove your employability within the time determined by your resources coupled with how desperate you are to leave the country. The later gives much more emphases on your employment than on the available resources.

[xpucu]

So i guess what you guys are saying is that we should just go back to the US and stay there, if our PR doesn't go through. Not the answer I was hoping for.

Anyways, to update you I have followed BBCWatcher's advice and sent an email to ICA with my husband's brand new DP as well as an explanation that we chose to do that instead of getting repatriated back. I'll let you know if there are any developments.

[ecureilx]

So i guess what you guys are saying is that we should just go back to the US and stay there, if our PR doesn't go through. Not the answer I was hoping for.

Anyways, to update you I have followed BBCWatcher's advice and sent an email to ICA with my husband's brand new DP as well as an explanation that we chose to do that instead of getting repatriated back. I'll let you know if there are any developments.

I don't think anybody is telling you pack your bags and get out !

It's just of late, Singapore is not that welcoming for new migrants, and that has to be taken into account when planning anything long term.

But, you never know, if the wind changes, SG Inc may open up the gates, to quickly absorb more migrants. Or never ever will there be a pre-2010 environment.

And if the opposition has more say, they may even kick out PRs, if you believe their war cries.

[sundaymorningstaple]

When I first hooked up with this board I had an extended conversation with an immigration attorney who was arguing precisely this point for a client of his... that Singapore PR is actually conditional upon employment and therefore, is actually a form of work permit as opposed to true permanent residency.

This not 100% true though. It is, when it concerned those PRs who obtained PR via the PTS scheme but is not when it is via the Family Ties scheme. Family Ties PR does not have any employment requirements as you have an anchor sponsor who is a SC.

[xpucu]

So we have just heard back and our PR has been rejected as you guys predicted . Language is " your application has not been successful. You can remain in Singapore on your respective passes". Do you think it's worth re-applying in two years? I am assuming no point in appealing unless we have something that has changed materially since 9 months ago which we don't.

[ecureilx]

So we have just heard back and our PR has been rejected as you guys predicted . Language is " your application has not been successful. You can remain in Singapore on your respective passes". Do you think it's worth re-applying in two years? I am assuming no point in appealing unless we have something that has changed materially since 9 months ago which we don't.

I am sure, in the next two years, at the minimum, your pay will have gone up - go and do some studies or whatever, and work on a promotion at work, if you can .. and then re-apply.

[xpucu]

One of my friends has suggested we produce a male heir by then We both have MBAs so not much more studying to do unfortunately but yes I guess getting a promotion can't hurt. The other issue someone suggested was that we applied in my name as opposed to my husband's as I have been here 2 years longer than him. Do you think that has any impact or the Singapore govt is evolved enough to look past backward ideas of gender roles?

[Strong Eagle]

So we have just heard back and our PR has been rejected as you guys predicted . Language is " your application has not been successful. You can remain in Singapore on your respective passes". Do you think it's worth re-applying in two years? I am assuming no point in appealing unless we have something that has changed materially since 9 months ago which we don't.

I'm playing the devil's advocate, and again, I judge you are the wrong "flavor of the month". You don't have a subcontinent problem, you have a white, MBA, finance problem. You are young. Educated. Mobile. Able to find work anywhere. You're not a good bet as a permanent resident, which, after all, is the stepping stone to citizenship. You are going to leave.

Now, maybe if one or both of you were promoted/announced to be the managing director of your company, or at the very least, promoted to a senior position that looked like you were being groomed for a long term top position, then I do believe your PR would be approved tomorrow morning when the doors opened.

You get the double whammy that if you're not the top level, then you are in competition with the local PMET's, and with today's populist outlook, it matters not what you can contribute, but rather what jobs you are stealing from the local population. So, we'll let you keep on with an EP... until we don't want to give that to you anymore, and meanwhile we can turn to the locals and say, "See... we're not letting the competition for your jobs get to stay here permanently... just like you asked."

[sundaymorningstaple]

I think I have to concur with SE's prognosis on this one. We've seen some other Caucasians in the Financial sector who were also unsuccessful with the same sort of admonishment in the rejection letter. Once someone reaches a certain level in that industry they become a commodity and most know by then that they will follow the money trail while they can. However if you are C level that seems to be the point where they roll out the red carpet. The rest don't make for good permanent residents looking to settle down in Singapore as they are still striving for that C level.