Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SB 1070 thread

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Thanks Proud and take care of that arm lady. Ok FIFA is over and the fun too. back to biz

    Brit these were the 2 bills the latest being CIR_ASAP:


    <span class="ev_code_RED">This is crazy</span>



    Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR)- Amnesty? *

    The Bill’s full title is ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act’ of 2009 (CIR ASAP).

    The Bill does not mention the word ‘amnesty’, instead it addresses the plight of undocumented immigrants.

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform - The House Bill
    We are very keen to stay on top of developments with CIR so we shall be posting any information we can asap. The amnesty element of this Bill will be the most hotly contested and the most eagerly anticipated. Our discussion on the merits of this Bill will begin with the amnesty.

    Title IV. Legalizing Undocumented Immigrants
    Here are the summary points required to qualify under this Bill: -
    * The alien must prove that they have been in the U.S. illegally before December 15th, 2009.

    * Must swear an oath / attest to having made contributions to the U.S. through employment, education, military service, or other volunteer/ community service (with exemptions for minors, persons with disabilities, the elderly, or other unusual circumstance).

    * Pay an application fee (to be advised) and a $500 fine.

    * Not have any convictions for a felony or for three or more misdemeanors.

    * Certain immigrants who are in removal proceedings, facing removal, or ordered to depart voluntarily would be able to apply for legalization.

    * Use of a false Social Security number will be waived / forgiven.

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform CIR ASAP
    The Conditional Non – immigration Visa – Amnesty Visa
    For qualifying undocumented aliens, they will be able to apply for the Conditional Non-immigrant Visa (CNV) and will give them six years of stay in the U.S. While in CNV status they will be able to travel and work for anyone - so in reality it will be like a six-year temporary green card for all practical purposes.

    Conditional Non-immigrant Visa to Permanent Green Card
    The Bill provides that CNV holders be granted a green card in not less than six years unless existing immigrant backlogs have been cleared before that time.


    Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Meets Dream Act Students

    The provisions of the earlier Dream Act have been adopted into this new Bill and provides that undocumented individuals who were brought into the U.S. before the age of 16 will be eligible for a CNV, but will not be subject to any fines, and these applicants will be eligible for an accelerated route to green card once they graduate from high school and complete two years of college, military service, or employment. Furthermore, Dream Act green card holders will be eligible for U.S. citizenship in just three years, rather than the hitherto five-year requirement.

    One final point is that the CIR ASAP provides that states will be permitted to decide whether Dream Act CNV holders will be charged in-state tuition rates or not

    source

    Comment


    • #77
      Under CIR2007, Illegals were supposed to pay back taxes. It is little known that the Bush Administration stealthly removed that provision from the bill. Look for Obama administration to do the same type of thing for any future bills that would call to pay back taxes for illegals.

      Just say no to this type of amnesty. What an outrage. Do not let this happen in the future amnesty bills.



      Tax amnesty for illegals

      White House insisted provision for payment of owed monies be stripped
      from Senate bill

      © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
      Whether the new bipartisan Senate immigration bill amounts to little
      more than amnesty for the 15 to 20 million illegal aliens residing in
      the U.S., as critics charge, the measure does offer one kind of
      amnesty - tax amnesty.

      According to the Boston Globe, the Bush administration insisted on the
      removal of a provision in the initial version of the bill, proposed by
      Kennedy (D-Mass.), requiring payment of back taxes and any related
      fines to the Internal Revenue Service as part of the road to
      citizenship.


      While the issue of tax liability was raised during the announcement of
      the immigration reform proposal on Thursday, the response of Homeland
      Security Secretary Michael Chertoff left some ambiguity.

      Referencing illegals who hoped to attain legal status under the Senate
      bill, Chertoff said, "You've got to pay your taxes."

      An inquiry yesterday to the White House by the Globe clarified that
      Chertoff was only referring to future taxes, not unpaid past taxes.


      "It is important that the reformed immigration system is workable and
      cost efficient," spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Determining the past
      tax liability would have been very difficult and costly and extremely
      time consuming."

      Illegals applying for a green card to become a legal U.S. resident
      would have to pay a $5,000 fine, noted Stenzel, but it had nothing to
      do with taxes owed.

      According to Kennedy's office, Chertoff had called for the tax
      provision to be removed, saying it would be "too challenging to
      accurately determine the amount of an applicant's back taxes" because
      many do not receive paychecks, making an accurate audit difficult.

      Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, expressed
      surprise the requirement had been removed. While acknowledging the
      difficulty of accurately determining tax bills for illegals, he
      estimated the figure would be in the tens of billions of dollars with
      a similar amount for penalties.

      rest of article here

      Comment


      • #78
        I am not a Nostradamus , so can't say what will happen tomorrow.
        But it seems like Tea Party activists' winning mid-term elections this year is already a done deal.

        So, not only any 2007 like CIR has zero chance of being voted on in near future (which should alleviate your worries about any provisions included in it), but it's more likely than not that next Congress will try to pass something more or less akin to Mexican Repatriation Act.
        SB 1070 was just testing grounds.
        http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

        "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

        Comment


        • #79
          If AZ pass immigration bill, so other states can pass their own bills, what if some states want to give legalization to illegals

          Comment


          • #80
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drooling_wolf:
            If AZ pass immigration bill, so other states can pass their own bills, what if some states want to give legalization to illegals </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            First, the argument AZ makes is that it's law is not in conflict with Federal Law wich outlaws illegal presence in the first place.

            Any State that wishes to grant legal status to illegal aliens would find it to be outside of their statutory power and in direct conflict with federal law.

            Second, even assuming there are some states that have majority of population that would support such measure (which, as i mentioned above, would be against Federal law and most certainly outlawed in court) , even if it was possible it would still have consequences too hard to bear for any individual state as it would cause millions of illegals flock to such state suddenly like an endless stream of refugess of Biblical proportions, thus totally descouraging any state official from taking it upon himself to resort to such a measure unilaterally.
            http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

            "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

            Comment


            • #81
              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it would still have consequences too hard to bear for any individual state as it would cause millions of illegals flock to such state suddenly like an endless stream of refugess of Biblical proportions, thus totally descouraging any state official from taking it upon himself to resort to such a measure unilaterally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


              Wow. All this time I thought drooling wolf was a troll with those threads. I see otherwise now.

              good example of this is Utah , who several years ago practically openingly invited illegals to come by offering driver licences, etc.

              Now the backlash is from the towns people who seem to have resentment from their settlments. see recent news story titled : Utah Anti-Immigrant Group IDs 1,300 Supposed Illegals

              http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...-immigrants/19554095

              Gawd E. you may be right about salem witch

              Comment


              • #82
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it would still have consequences too hard to bear for any individual state as it would cause millions of illegals flock to such state suddenly like an endless stream of refugess of Biblical proportions, thus totally descouraging any state official from taking it upon himself to resort to such a measure unilaterally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                Wow. All this time I thought drooling wolf was a troll with those threads. I see otherwise now.

                good example of this is Utah , who several years ago practically openingly invited illegals to come by offering driver licences, etc.

                Now the backlash is from the towns people who seem to have resentment from their settlments. see recent news story titled : Utah Anti-Immigrant Group IDs 1,300 Supposed Illegals

                http://www.aolnews.com/nation/...-immigrants/19554095

                Gawd E. you may be right about salem witch </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                davdahs' truck drivers are on the loose

                Anyhooo.. there is never a hint of trollness in my posts. Just plain facts and reasonable conclusions which i express to educate those who lack both.

                As to Utah, it's not an example of measure suggested by dw.

                Utah didn't legalise illegals (which it had no statutory power to do), rather it did what was in it's power to do and had nothing to do with legalisation, which was to allow illegals apply and get a DL.

                And come to think of it,did anyone keep any statistics on what was the overall impact of restricting the DL to illegals in many other States? What pros and cons, what results did it produce?
                http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                Comment


                • #83
                  E

                  you are not reading well here , unless you are saying that you are drooling wolf

                  I will explain

                  If you see drooling wolf's threads, they seem to be troll threads looking for baits or responses. It now appears from this post that DW just doesnt really have a clue about howa things work.

                  I was responding to you referencing what what happens when the invitations go out , except you took it way too literal.



                  I dont know if anybody did any studies on the DL thing, Im sure somebody out there has info.

                  The only thing I know is that states that did not require immigration documentation for dl received a large amounts of overstays, and undocumented to reside in their state. There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    [QUOTE]Originally posted by 4now:
                    E

                    you are not reading well here , unless you are saying that you are drooling wolf

                    I will explain

                    If you see drooling wolf's threads, they seem to be troll threads looking for baits or responses. It now appears from this post that DW just doesnt really have a clue about howa things work.

                    I was responding to you referencing what what happens when the invitations go out , except you took it way too literal.



                    I dont know if anybody did any studies on the DL thing, Im sure somebody out there has info.

                    The only thing I know is that states that did not require immigration documentation for dl received a large amounts of overstays, and undocumented to reside in their state. There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year.

                    Some dl states at that time were north carolina, maryland and utah. Maryland has nasty issues about illegals and it seems that utah is now having the same response. I havent heard any backlash from north carolina.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                      E

                      you are not reading well here , unless you are saying that you are drooling wolf

                      I will explain

                      If you see drooling wolf's threads, they seem to be troll threads looking for baits or responses. It now appears from this post that DW just doesnt really have a clue about howa things work.

                      I was responding to you referencing what what happens when the invitations go out , except you took it way too literal.



                      I dont know if anybody did any studies on the DL thing, Im sure somebody out there has info.

                      The only thing I know is that states that did not require immigration documentation for dl received a large amounts of overstays, and undocumented to reside in their state. There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                      Thank you for the explanation. Now i can see you are also one of the trolls here. I was thining otherwise before, that's all.

                      In regards to States that issue DL without verifying immigration status, the last time i checked the color-coded map with largest concentration of estimated illegal population it had little geographically in common with States that still allowed illegals get a DL.
                      California and NYC have some of the highest concentrations of illegal alien populations. How many moved out from either to Utah lately?

                      The question i ask is relevant, btw. Because i remember how this DL restriction thing was advocated by Center for Immigration Studies think tank as one of the "attrition through enforcement" tools.

                      Anyone has any ideas what were overall pros and cons of it's implementation?
                      http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                      "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                        E

                        you are not reading well here , unless you are saying that you are drooling wolf

                        I will explain

                        If you see drooling wolf's threads, they seem to be troll threads looking for baits or responses. It now appears from this post that DW just doesnt really have a clue about howa things work.

                        I was responding to you referencing what what happens when the invitations go out , except you took it way too literal.



                        I dont know if anybody did any studies on the DL thing, Im sure somebody out there has info.

                        The only thing I know is that states that did not require immigration documentation for dl received a large amounts of overstays, and undocumented to reside in their state. There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                        Thank you for the explanation. Now i can see you are also one of the trolls here. I was thining otherwise before, that's all.

                        In regards to States that issue DL without verifying immigration status, the last time i checked the color-coded map with largest concentration of estimated illegal population it had little geographically in common with States that still allowed illegals get a DL.
                        California and NYC have some of the highest concentrations of illegal alien populations. How many moved out from either to Utah lately?

                        The question i ask is relevant, btw. Because i remember how this DL restriction thing was advocated by Center for Immigration Studies think tank as one of the "attrition through enforcement" tools.

                        Anyone has any ideas what were overall pros and cons of it's implementation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                        Again, I will stete the explanation

                        " There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year."

                        No need to move, just make a trip and obtain dl and bring it back to turn in to get one . Voila.

                        In the case of Utah, it was the Mormon church that actively invited illegals. They did so by newspaper even, offering shelter and food. This was during the time of the workplace raids that was displacing many of them from arizona, and california.

                        It is all about work and shelter. NYC and california are popular because you can always find work under the table... no problem. You can always get fake id, ssn, fake greencard etc.There is easy access.


                        The "attrition thru enforcement in regards to dl .. It was implied by many that if you had a drivers license that you must be legal because the state agencies were supposed to check the credentials. It was supposed to be difficult to get credit, work, housing, etc without a drivers license or state id. Without a dl, it was supposed to deter illegals or encourage them to leave.

                        I suspect that in the next year or two when these porcedures are implemented, that it may have some impact.

                        I will look to see if I can find the list of the pros and cons. We had this discussion on ILW sometime back when Ellliot Spitzer tried to force legislation to give illegals dl in New York.( I suspect he was being blackmailed to do this by people that knew of his affair, however no one has ever brought up the subject. It was just too bizarre his efforts about this.)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                          Group photo of ILW members.


                          </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                          That must be me there with the Pink hair

                          Wheres my tail

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 4now:
                            E

                            you are not reading well here , unless you are saying that you are drooling wolf

                            I will explain

                            If you see drooling wolf's threads, they seem to be troll threads looking for baits or responses. It now appears from this post that DW just doesnt really have a clue about howa things work.

                            I was responding to you referencing what what happens when the invitations go out , except you took it way too literal.



                            I dont know if anybody did any studies on the DL thing, Im sure somebody out there has info.

                            The only thing I know is that states that did not require immigration documentation for dl received a large amounts of overstays, and undocumented to reside in their state. There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                            Thank you for the explanation. Now i can see you are also one of the trolls here. I was thining otherwise before, that's all.

                            In regards to States that issue DL without verifying immigration status, the last time i checked the color-coded map with largest concentration of estimated illegal population it had little geographically in common with States that still allowed illegals get a DL.
                            California and NYC have some of the highest concentrations of illegal alien populations. How many moved out from either to Utah lately?

                            The question i ask is relevant, btw. Because i remember how this DL restriction thing was advocated by Center for Immigration Studies think tank as one of the "attrition through enforcement" tools.

                            Anyone has any ideas what were overall pros and cons of it's implementation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                            Again, I will stete the explanation

                            " There were even more of those that used friends addresses to just to obtain driver liceses from that state without actually moving there. They would then turn in that dl to the state that they were in for a new one. At that time , the dl would just be issued for the current state without any checks. This is no longer true in most states changing over dl now. Now a lot of states by 2011 will require everyone to show documentation to have dl reissued , including us citizens who have had dl for 50 years. Many illegals/overstays etc that obtained dl by this method will lose dl in many states come next year."

                            No need to move, just make a trip and obtain dl and bring it back to turn in to get one . Voila.

                            In the case of Utah, it was the Mormon church that actively invited illegals. They did so by newspaper even, offering shelter and food. This was during the time of the workplace raids that was displacing many of them from arizona, and california.

                            It is all about work and shelter. NYC and california are popular because you can always find work under the table... no problem. You can always get fake id, ssn, fake greencard etc.There is easy access.


                            The "attrition thru enforcement in regards to dl .. It was implied by many that if you had a drivers license that you must be legal because the state agencies were supposed to check the credentials. It was supposed to be difficult to get credit, work, housing, etc without a drivers license or state id. Without a dl, it was supposed to deter illegals or encourage them to leave.

                            I suspect that in the next year or two when these porcedures are implemented, that it may have some impact.

                            I will look to see if I can find the list of the pros and cons. We had this discussion on ILW sometime back when Ellliot Spitzer tried to force legislation to give illegals dl in New York.( I suspect he was being blackmailed to do this by people that knew of his affair, however no one has ever brought up the subject. It was just too bizarre his efforts about this.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            I really find it too hard to believe that those $15 per hour, mostly cash earning illegals of New York were deviously clever and resourceful enough to trap the former AG and Governor of the State of New York in an affair and later use it to blackmail him in order to get the DL.
                            But you can write a novel and ,who knows, beat top bestseller list with it

                            As to "attrition thru enforcement" i don't think those guys in Center of Imm. Studies have any clues about people they claim to be experts on.

                            But i am willing to look into actual data, statistics demonstrating practical results of this policy implementation.

                            And by "pros" i mean the objectives achieved (such as: number of illegals that have left States where they had no ability to get DL and solely because of additional hurdle it caused , etc.) and by "cons" i mean the costs carried by Citizens (such as increased # of accidents caused by people without DL , and subsequently, without insurance and etc.).
                            http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                            "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                            Comment

                            Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                            Home Page

                            Immigration Daily

                            Archives

                            Processing times

                            Immigration forms

                            Discussion board

                            Resources

                            Blogs

                            Twitter feed

                            Immigrant Nation

                            Attorney2Attorney

                            CLE Workshops

                            Immigration books

                            Advertise on ILW

                            EB-5

                            移民日报

                            About ILW.COM

                            Connect to us

                            Questions/Comments

                            SUBSCRIBE

                            Immigration Daily



                            Working...
                            X