to S12:
Then why don't you shut all your borders and announce to the world you don't want any immigrants at all. Because that's what the current laws boil down to anyway and don't give me the carp you want legal immigration because you really don't.
You hate all immigrants, legal too, and if you could stop all foreigners from coming, that would be best right? Of course I am right.

I actually wish that happens. You shut the borders tight, and we'll see where it takes the great US of A.
Because without immigrants America is just another country.

Current law has failed simply because it's not constructed to promote legal immigration, instead, it's designed to restrict immigration and achieve what could be described as "ethnic" control. However, I don't think Congress is responsible, instead, blame must be placed upon certain groups that exist to influence legislation.

Take PWORA as an example, it denies benefits to children brought to this country at early ages but leaves untouched benefits, including "organ transplants", to prisoners and convicted child predators. Is a child more dangerous than a convicted felon? PWORA also MANDATES payment of benefits to aliens from Cuba, Haiti and others, so clearly this is not a problem of resources, but a problem of intent. The deeper you look into this particular fact the more horrific it becomes.

As long as the problem is not recognized for what it really is the problem will not be solved and this great nation will continue to suffer under ineffective, unfair and poorly constructed immigration provisions. Very sad indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston:
1. Current law has failed simply because it's not constructed to promote legal immigration, instead, it's designed to restrict immigration and achieve what could be described as "ethnic" control.

2.However, I don't think Congress is responsible, instead, blame must be placed upon certain groups that exist to influence legislation.

1. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html

Little bit out of date, but would seem to favour Asia and Central and South America, not sure what the ethic control this is.

2. Interesting, Congress not responsible for its own acts. So is it because they are too stupid or too easily bribed? Actually they would still be responsible for being easily bribed.

iperson: please...find ONE single posting of mine where I have stated that I am against LEGAL immigration or that I said 'shut down the borders...' go ahead....find one....
I am only against illegal immigration.

Let me make clear the point that blaming Congress as a whole for the influenced actions of some individuals is unfair. Congress is a noble institution and I believe in its capabilities to design fair and efficient law. Even rushed judgments against some actors who apparently try to enforce personal points of view through legislation would be a somewhat draconian as they obey not only to personal motives but also to those of their constituents.

The main issue at hand is one of understanding. During last year's debate, and I mean those public debates held throughout the nation, one thing became apparent. People don't clearly understand the law. Even in this forum, there's nobody that really understands INA completely and in its entirety, I know I don't. The same has been observed by several courts of appeals when it comes to the decisions of some immigration judges and adjudicators. When the issue is a confusing one, opinions and sentiments are necessarily affected by that lack of understanding.

Out in the streets, some people believe that immigrants don't have any constitutional rights while others believe that immigrants simply cannot be imprisoned indefinitely because of their constitutional rights. These are the same people, ordinary citizens, that Congress must tend to. Understandably, there's a wide variety of opinions regarding immigration triggered by many different and personal conceptualizations of the law, not necessarily valid, but relevant nonetheless.

Ethnic control has been the foundation of immigration law since its origins. Many provisions have been designed to "preserve the ethnic composition of the nation", the Chinese Exclusion Act is one example. These statutes have long been repealed because legislation cannot support discriminatory measures, but the effects of such statutes is strong and usually permanent. You now have nations such as China and India with the same per-country quotas as the smallest countries in the world. There's also a "preferential view" for nations of the western hemisphere when it comes to certain immigration provisions.

The CIMT statutes could represent another example of instruments aimed at "controlling" the composition of a community. The meaning of CIMT is rooted in the concept of community standards and date back to the late 19th century when communities were much smaller, much more "uniform" and the law quite simpler. I don't know how to clearly explain the application of these "standards", but making reference to the modern case of Miller v. California could be a good place to start.

Since the CIMT concept is based upon "community" standards, it would be logical to assume that community standards vary from place to place. So, it's not the criminal conduct that renders an alien removable, it's the community as a body. In other words, the community has the power to accept or reject an alien based on tests and "standards" subjective in nature. These statutes survive today and the consequences are terrible. Instead of removing aliens that represent "danger" to the community, as defined by criminal law, the courts must apply these subjective tests producing irrational results. An alien convicted of a severe battery is "acceptable" while an alien convicted of a petty theft, perhaps to feed her children, is not. The other evident outcome of all this is the huge backlogs and burdens placed upon BIA and the Courts when deciding what actually constitutes a CIMT. BIA offers a long list of opinions reversing based upon an erroneous definition of CIMT by an IJ. Again, the law is much more complex now, criminal statutes are abundant, applying the categorical analysis to a certain crime is difficult, risky and not always fair.

Nothing else could be expected from legislation aimed at a different time in history, designed to empower communities to preserve dispose of aliens who don't "fit in".

But to me a critical part of immigration law is related to its purpose. The purpose of the statute has shifted and with it the levels of illegal immigration. The law must be designed to encourage and assist legal immigration, but it's now seen as a tool to prevent immigration, legal or otherwise. Provisions calling for removal on minor violations cannot be seen as merely punitive, they are not, they're designed to reduce the number of aliens present. The result is an entire population living in fear, confused and afraid to exercise any rights afforded to them.

Most of the "illegal" population today would have been legal immigrants under the provisions that existed years ago, and those provisions were changed only to "reduce" immigration, not because the economy was in decline, not because of a social problem. That desire to "reduce" the number of aliens present to "save the nation" is creating a monumental problem by failing to recognize the need and the demand for immigration. Nobody here can argue that the economy during the mid XX century was in decline, as a matter of fact, the economy was so strong it supported ambitious programs such as the space race and the arms race during the cold war.

Looking at figures is only half the story. Figures are meaningless without a context, that's a principle in statistics, understanding the meaning of the "sample". Levels of immigration must be compared to demand, need and many other relevant circumstances to make a proper determination.

The law has been altered to pursue issues associated with "ethnicity" and "population control" and when some obscure intent is coupled with a lack of understanding of what the problem really is, nothing good can be expected. The results speak for themselves.

Bravo Houston- well said. Grand post.
You hit the proverbial nail on its head.
I think you'd be a great law maker because you understand the nature of the problem and you really do care for your country.

S12- your demeanor towards foreigners, legal or illegal speaks volumes. Of course you will say you are not against legal immigration because you well know that it's extremely limited.
Were the law changed to allow larger numbers legally, you'll be against those legal aliens in a blink of an eye.
Your posts underlie covert racism.

quote:

Originally posted by iperson:
Bravo Houston- well said. Grand post.
You hit the proverbial nail on its head.
I think you'd be a great law maker because you understand the nature of the problem and you really do care for your country.

S12- your demeanor towards foreigners, legal or illegal speaks volumes. Of course you will say you are not against legal immigration because you well know that it's extremely limited.
Were the law changed to allow larger numbers legally, you'll be against those legal aliens in a blink of an eye.
Your posts underlie covert racism.

iperson, you just love to argue and accuse. You've accused Someone12 of this gazillion times. Why don't you ignore his posts if you don't like them. Weren't you sick of this board, anyway?

iperson: you are so full of cabbage soup...bottom line: I am a patriotic American, who has fought in Viet Nam and doesn't want to see MY country (not your country) over run with illegal scumbags...
Congress set the limits on LEGAL immigration....responsible adults obey those laws....$hitbags don't.
The American citizen/taxpayer comes first - his or her interests are first and foremost, not some scumbag illegal who snuck across our borders or violated the terms of a visa privilege that may have been given to him or her...AMERICANS first...not Mexicans, not Poles, not French, not Nigerians, no one else is first except A MER I CANS....get it, you dumb eastern european t wat? This is the United States of AMERICA, not the Disunited States of Poland or Mexico or (you name the country)....and again, since you are clearly intelligence-impaired, illegals are not a race, they are a disease.

I feel sorry for you Someone12, I really honestly do.
After reading the latest Newsweek devoted to all the soldiers killed in Iraq, I understand more where you are coming from. You fought for your country in a war similar to Iraq, a war that went terribly wrong.
And I understand that you are a victim of war and of the company called the US government.
The Iraq war is waged to protect the interests of the Elite, whoever they are, not the American people.
The Company's main interest is money, not the interests of American people.
Why would any country spend a trillion dollars on a war if not to gain access to natural resources that will bring the investment back triple that amount, or more?
Why would American government allow the US comapnies outsource jobs to other countries?
Every day American people lose jobs because they are being outsourced elsewhere in the world.
Why would American government not seal the Mexican border for years? Because Mexico provides slave labor American economy stands on.
Because the Elite has interests in the largest American companies. Because they run the military business. Because they have big stakes in the oil business.
The American government is a business like any other, whose main objective is to make money, not to protect its employees (read American people). The US goverment does not care about American people and as soon as you realize it S12, the better for you.
You fought in the war for the Elite, under the false flag of patriotism.

What I would suggest to you S12 is to take on a therapy session as long as you need it, to recover from the psychological impact the war had on your psyche. I think you do have a big problem and you need to fix yourself.
In your mind you see foreigners as the Vietnamese enemies you still have nightmares about at night. Hence your comment the illegal aliens are a disease. For you illegal aliens are an enemy you think you should go and kill.
Am I right?

I've had this guy in a photography class who was a Vietnam vetaran. A very nice guy with a talent in photography. I liked him up until he told me something really shocking. He said he killed people in Vietnam and he would gladly take his gun back and go and kill. He didn't specify who he would be glad to go on killing.
I thought something is terribly wrong with this guy. I feel he didn't have a proper psychological help after the war. And I think you too, S12, still have unresolved issues.
Take my advice and fix yourself because you're not able to lead a happy fruitfull life.

Immigration law is perhaps one of the most cruel and contemporary examples of controversial policy. Ever since the enactment of the first immigration laws, legislation aimed at "ethnic control" has been put in place time and time again, from the Chinese Exclusion Act to PNOA (designed to preserve ethnic composition of nation) and the amendments of 1965. But this is not where it all ends, or starts for that matter. The law has been a preferred tool to be used against aliens to achieve goals unrelated to the true well being of a nation.

During the civil war doctors first experimented with Morphine as a pain killer without a comprehensive understanding of the actual effects of the drug. The results were tragic, thousands upon thousands of disabled soldiers now addicted to the infamous pain killer. But this was not the problem that triggered the first incentives for drug control. Instead, the first efforts were designed against the Chinese to prevent them from "seducing while women into submission". Racial issues were so strong that it was considered an impossibility that a white woman could develop "feelings of affection" for a non-white male. This sounds ridiculous today, but it serves to illustrate the real issues behind the problem.

Let's just move on now to more modern issues.

One clear example is the asylum provisions of modern law. Does a person who's being harassed, subject to continuous cruelty and abuse have "credible fear"? My answer would be a yes. What about public charge restrictions? Is it really reasonable to deny an application to a qualified college grad when the spouse doesn't have enough resources for an affidavit of support? If the issue was actually "what will happen" the application would be approved, but the issue seems to be instead "trying to find a reason to deny".

This is all in the past right? Immigration reform to the rescue... Yes, dream on. Several qualified experts have commented on STRIVE and how aliens who crossed the border with a family member are ineligible. Surprise! (I didn't notice that defect, but I'm no expert. It's one serious blow to the actual effectiveness of a provision intended at "driving illegals out of the shadows".)

People say "open immigration" is damaging, but what do we have today? Every ten years there seems to be an amnesty triggered by deficient law and an unbearable situation giving legal status to, well, everybody. How many mass amnesties were actually needed before the Act was amended to become an instrument of "restriction"?

Flexible laws would alleviate the problem with the added bonus of eliminating fear, intimidation and oppression of immigrants, but this is not a "priority". As long as those who are oppressed cannot vote, no real damage is perceived, that very reason has been stated here over and over. But, children do not vote, so is it OK to oppress them? Of course not. Who in here is going to be the first to have the courage to say that it's acceptable to mistreat a 2 year old illegal immigrant? Children are innocent victims of cruel policies, but most importantly, people need to recognize the humanity in the law, the same humanity that's protected by the Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments.

A fair, comprehensive and humane law would not only reduce exploitation of immigrants and illegal conduct but would actually implement "controlled" immigration, something that's a far cry from today's harsh reality.

to justone and someone12

I am also married to an illegal immigrant. Who was brought here by his parents when he was a child. He was raised as an american. He worked and paid taxes. He has his High School Diploma. He speaks English better then I do and I was born and raised here (also white). He never once knew that he was not a citizen of the United States. Until 3 years after being with me and finding out that I was expecting a baby did his mother tell him the truth. We were already planning on Mariage but not as soon as we thought. We started to go to every lawyer in our area and every one of them told him to marry me that was the only way. For the last Five years I have been filing paper work and being fees to have his green card. He still work with a real social security number and still pays taxes. He has never broken the law or anything. And now because of this new operations return to sender INS has picked him up and he is in a jail for the first time in his life. Waiting on a $7,500 bail and to see a judge to see what is next for our family.

Not all illegal immigrants know they are not from here if there parents don't tell them.

quote:

Originally posted by onevoice:
to justone and someone12

I am also married to an illegal immigrant. Who was brought here by his parents when he was a child. He was raised as an american. He worked and paid taxes. He has his High School Diploma. He speaks English better then I do and I was born and raised here (also white). He never once knew that he was not a citizen of the United States. Until 3 years after being with me and finding out that I was expecting a baby did his mother tell him the truth. We were already planning on Mariage but not as soon as we thought. We started to go to every lawyer in our area and every one of them told him to marry me that was the only way. For the last Five years I have been filing paper work and being fees to have his green card. He still work with a real social security number and still pays taxes. He has never broken the law or anything. And now because of this new operations return to sender INS has picked him up and he is in a jail for the first time in his life. Waiting on a $7,500 bail and to see a judge to see what is next for our family.

Not all illegal immigrants know they are not from here if there parents don't tell them.

As most know, I'm totally against illegal immigration; however, in cases like these where it wasn't directly the person's fault, I do have some sympathy. There are more knowledgeable people here who can probably help, but if I were you, I'd find a reputable immigration attorney. When did they arrive in this country? Before 1986?

Let me ask you a question if I may. If you had to choose between an illegal alien who has a college degree and an illegal alien who is the immediate relative of a citizen and who supports a citizen and the entire family, who would you favor for legalization?

excerpt from the New York Daily News dated 3/14/07, written by a dolores prida, her address is: doloresprida@aol.com. She writes: Americans are notorious for their negative and dismissive attitude toward foreign languages... this cultural "arrogance" could be costly (she cites about the lack of translators of Arabic into English after 9/11). Why are monolingual Americans so averse to embracing foreign languages? because 1. Americans suffer from "xenoglossophobia" 2. "they" believe it's necessary to amend the Constitution to know for sure which is "their" official language. 3. "They" think English is an American language. 4. They fear we are talking about them. 5. "They" hate foreing films because they can't read the English subtitles fast enough. 6. "They" think it's ok to sell (she names a bunch of products) to minorities in their native languages, but not ok to have bilingual education, or VOTING BALLOTS in those same languages. This can only be written by a third world, commie pinko *******, who lives in the US, takes advantage of OUR BENEFITS, including the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, and yet she refers to us as "they". She deliberately twisted everything around to fill her own agenda. And why is the NY Daily News allowing these primitive people to trash our country, our people, our ideas?

I'm completely against bilingual education. There's nothing draconian about asking people to adapt, to become a member of society, to learn a skill. Most states provide free classes through charity groups and other non-profits to help immigrants learn "basic" English, these classes are available to all, regardless of immigration status and do not impose any significant burden upon the students.

One day English will be declared the "official" language through a Constitutional amendment, and that'll be one good day.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston:
Let me ask you a question if I may. If you had to choose between an illegal alien who has a college degree and an illegal alien who is the immediate relative of a citizen and who supports a citizen and the entire family, who would you favor for legalization?

I suppose this question was directed to me? It would still matter to me how the illegal alien arrived in the USA - college degree or not. Onevoice stated her husband was brought here illegally as a child - I can't see how that was his fault because he didn't have a choice. Especially since his parents didn't tell him until he was already an adult. I believe there should be some form of relief for him considering his circumstances - perhaps this should also be covered in the immigration reform bill?

quote:

Originally posted by Houston:
I'm completely against bilingual education. There's nothing draconian about asking people to adapt, to become a member of society, to learn a skill. Most states provide free classes through charity groups and other non-profits to help immigrants learn "basic" English, these classes are available to all, regardless of immigration status and do not impose any significant burden upon the students.

One day English will be declared the "official" language through a Constitutional amendment, and that'll be one good day.

As am I! If we make the choice to take a second language (which I did), that's great. My kid's school actually offered a Spanish version of their entire curriculum - did I want my kids to learn math, history, science in Spanish - certainly not!!! I also don't believe the Hispanic kids should have that choice. They should be required to take their classes in English - period!

Let me make one thing clear. I'm all for making English the official language but I don't agree with states picking up the tab. This is a very small sacrifice an immigrant should make for his or her new country, requiring no hardships, no separations, no significant burden.

Some argue that since government expenses would be dramatically reduced by the adoption of an official language, the "excess money" should be transformed into grants and incentives to help immigrants learn English. This very option was proposed and considered by some conservatives last year. First, there's no such thing as "excess money", second, such funds should be allocated to programs of public interests such as education, public safety, crime prevention, child safety and health care.

The immigrant should take upon the challenge with pride and should