quote:

Iperson - the US already provides economic support to many failing nations.

The US government, not counting the private hands, gives less than 3% of the GDP to other nations. That is obscene.
While spending about a trillion $ on Iraq.

The US can't possibly heal the whole world, but with the money it has, it can help a lot instead of ruining it.

Hard core truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Houston:
As far as Congress is concerned, U.S. citizens come first and that shouldn't change. It's not the job of the United States to repair the economy of every nation.

Immigration law should be constructed in an efficient and realistic way. You cannot legislate based on the facts as you would like them to be, but based upon the facts as they are. It's well known that immigration law lacks a sensible consideration for reality and the price this nation has paid for such a mistake is incredibly high.

But that's one thing, and asking Congress to fix the world economy is another. Believe me, Congress has a full plate just trying to improve social security, immigration, health care and education, add that to the war in Iraq and you have a severe case of indigestion... There's plenty of domestic issues that, I believe, take precedence over any international matter.

Again, well said and I am in agreement. I believe we need to help our own before we can try to solve the economic woes of the other countries. Iraq, indeed, is a sad situation. In my opinion, that situation will never be straightened out. They are so accustomed to a dictatorship rule, democracy will never work for them (at least not in my lifetime). I, being the strong minded Republican that I am, am in favor of finding a good way to get out of there! With all the suicide bombings and craziness going on, these are people that don't want our help. Don't know what the answer is, but keeping an open mind about it.

quote:

Originally posted by iperson:

quote:

Iperson - the US already provides economic support to many failing nations.

The US government, not counting the private hands, gives less than 3% of the GDP to other nations. That is obscene.
While spending about a trillion $ on Iraq.

The US can't possibly heal the whole world, but with the money it has, it can help a lot instead of ruining it.

Hard core truth.

iperson,
I'm inputing an article Reverse Foreign Aid, Why are poor countries subsidizing rich ones?, in response to Guby's post 3/23/07 under Help Support Illegal Immigrants. I'll have to finish typing the rest of it tomorrow possibly. Thought it might interest you.

I've noticed a few comments, some of them bordering the ironic, that comment on the so-called complexity of the law. The true irony however is that such comments are brought up in a forum, one of the many, that exist to help immigrants cope with the confusion and misunderstanding of a law that cannot be read but in the light of hundreds, if not thousands, of judicial opinions and guidelines.

But these opinions also hinder comprehensive evaluation of proposed legislation, these folks again read the statutes without much knowledge of what these statutes actually imply.

The STRIVE Act is one very clear example. One would think that if you're fixing to renovate a house you would start by addressing the condition of its foundation and then taking the required measures to correct the problem. Apparently STRIVE Act only STRIVES to achieve the very same problems present today ten years from now.

This is supposed to be Comprehensive reform and to be comprehensive it must be complete, addressing all material issues in a rational manner. Case law is extremely extensive and controversial when it comes to certain issues, but those issues are incorporated into critical areas of STRIVE without clarification, thus aggravating a problem and escalating the controversy beyond single cases to a whole class of individuals. This is not reform, let alone comprehensive reform.

One particular provision is that comes to mind is the "particularly serious crime" (PSC) segment in the requirements for the legalization program. The provision is worded in the same way as those governing asylum, and will have the very same effect. A plain reading of the statute produces a consequence that contradicts the judicial precedent.

"Having been convicted of a PSC, constitutes a danger to the community" seems to imply that an alien who has a conviction AND who is a danger to the community is ineligible. I would agree with this provision but the judicial interpretation of the same is completely different. There's no statutory definition for PSC, but what's worse, once the person is convicted of a PSC the person is deemed to be a danger to the community regardless of the consequences.

This interpretation of perpetual dangerousness defies logic. Following the same line of thought, President Bush should never be allowed to drive, let alone the authority of ordering troops into combat, because of his ancient DUI violation, a completely preposterous proposition. Also, a 100 year old man convicted of assault many years ago would be deemed a "danger to the community". Moreover, a dependent the person is dependent on a machine and medication just to breathe.

BIA continuously cite the fact that their opinion has not been overruled by the Appeals court, but this has more to do with Chevron than with the actual merit of the decision given the fact that Congress has not spoken clearly on the issue. BIA also argues that the very analysis of PSC includes consideration of the dangerousness element, but that analysis reflects only the reality that existed at the time the offense was committed.

Criminal law recognizes and seeks rehabilitation, if that wasn't the case every offense would trigger life in prison or death. There would be no short sentences, no probation, no parole, let alone pardons. It's inconceivable that this very reality is not even considered by legislation that's supposed to be comprehensive, fair and most of all, modern.

Congress has not removed he words "danger to the community" regardless of the fact that the statute has been altered and amended quite a few times. Why would this be if these words had no meaning? All words enacted by Congress must be given proper meaning. United States v. Menashe, 348 U.S.528, 538-39 (1955).

To add to the confusion, there's no definition of PSC, but most disturbing is the fact that the Attorney General may designate any crime as a PSC by regulation.

I agree with an objective analysis of the actual danger posed by the alien applicant instead of a per-se determination of dangerousness based upon a conviction, regardless of facts, rehabilitation or age of the conviction.

I warned about the extreme burden that would be placed upon the USCIS by mandating an exercise of discretion on every single application. This seems not to bother the sponsors of the legislation. However, discretion is not provided where discretion is needed.

If this is going to be "comprehensive" and effective reform, the mistakes of the past shouldn't be repeated and controversial provisions shouldn't remain unaltered.

Things are not so simple after all.

quote:

To qualify:
- 3 years or more of physical presence in the U.S.
- Evidence that the person has not relied on cash public benefits for support.
- Admissible under criminal, security and health grounds. Other grounds do not apply: 212(a) (5), (6), (7), (9),and (10). (No criminal action shall be initiated for conduct that constituted a violation of the waived grounds).
- No outstanding child support obligations
- Basic skills and ability to work
- Equity: US citizen family, U.S. based investments.
- Basic domain of the English language
- Basic citizenship skills.
- Sworn allegiance to the U.S.
- Application fee of $1000 (payable in parts, if accepted by CIS).

There must be at least 5 million people who would not qualify.

What happens to them?

We're not talking about "what happens to people who don't qualify". Believe it or not, under STRIVE most people wouldn't even be able to show they qualify because there's nothing mandating employers to disclose information.

I'm talking about flooding the courts with endless adjudications, appeals and analysis of absurd requirements. I agree with the PSC restriction, it's the judicial holding under Chevron I don't agree with.

This is not about what to do with people who don't qualify, it's more about making sense out of the requirements themselves. It would be like saying there's a physical presence requirement and ruling that physical presence must be while in "legal status" in order to get "legalized". This is the sort of non-sense will cause the courts to be flooded with appeals.

Reconcile STRIVE with case law and you'll see what I mean.

quote:

This is supposed to be Comprehensive reform and to be comprehensive it must be complete, addressing all material issues in a rational manner.

You suggested the amendment, but it does not pass the test above.

Does not in your eyes, however, that "amendment" is only a part of a larger package of changes I support. I have said many times that legalization, the area covered by the amendment you cite, has nothing little to do with reform and should never be the main focus of any CIR.

The comment on the PSC relates as to how controversial topic that are complex and the center of dispute and circuit splits are being left unresolved by this purported CIR. The PSC requirement would make sense, if applied as defined by judge Rosenberg (BIA), but it is not.

But you need to read the legislation in light of case law to understand what I'm talking about.

Hey
I am jsut wondering about this bill and what do you guys mean by investment? What kind of investment should illegal immigrant make - if that illegal immigrant does not have enough money and he/she is not a milliomaire? This investment probably would require lots of money? What do you mean?

Eureka! that's we need, tougher security measures and enforcement of the same. I totally agree with illegals going back to their countries, stand in line everyone else, apply and then come back. We need to do a thorough cleaning of this country.

Whatever the US spends on Iraq is our business. You say "the truth", what is the truth? the truth is so evasive, so hard to tell, just ask any illegal.