Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The new bill....

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

  • RCM
    replied
    I agree along with 75% of Americans that people who broke the law to come here should not be rewarded while those who respect the law receive no such reward. Talk about the wrong message. By the way, no one carries a sign on there back saying "illegal" One must only supply a reasonably authentic looking ID or two (which can be had on the street for $50-$100).
    By the way, being opposed to illegal activity and using fake identification does not make on a racist. Let's stop that name-alling non-sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    A child may be eligible, but benefits are ONLY granted to the child in question and ONLY to ensure his or her own well-being. And the "free medical care" mentioned here is restricted to cover ONLY the child, and not the parents. Children or no children, undocumented aliens are entitled only to emergency care under very restricted circumstances.

    Leave a comment:


  • ntfd3
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Houston:
    The U.S. Citizen child is not an illegal alien, but it doesn't change the fact that some aliens (both legal and illegal) and citizens, are notorious dead-beat parents who have outstanding child support debts amounting to thousands and thousands, and the state is forced to pick up the slack. These individuals expose their own children to severe emotional distress, intentionally and maliciously creating a burden on society of substantial proportions. These actions are not the result of some inability to pay, or some extraordinary consequences or a misunderstanding of the law, but the known and forceable results of intentional acts caused by greed, it's all about money.

    Nobody decides intentionally to get sick, providing healthcare is a matter of humanitarian implications. However, when it comes to failure to pay child support, damages are caused because another decided he or she doesn't want to pay an obligation, because another decided to keep the money, and that's a very different matter; these are intentional acts with predictable consequences and should carry severe weight upon the perpetrators. Note that child support orders are mandated by the Court and the Court will not order an obligation knowing the affected parent cannot cover it.

    Nobody should be able to qualify for any form of legalization as long as their child support obligations are not completely satisfied and there's documented evidence to prove it. For once, people should be held accountable for the children they decide to bring into this world, they're not "things" or mistakes, they're precious human beings! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


    child support.... DONT GET ME OFF ON CHILD SUPPORT i have a 14 year old that has seen no money since she was 6 and a 12 year old that papa thinks now were here he is running to the finish line quicker!!!! HE will wish he never met me. I might be here, but the german courts although too busy with other things it seems that child support cases are not important..I will find a way tho.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    Hudson,

    I don't dispute that anchor babies are US citizens at all. I was simply challenging Amarles statement that illegals do not receive welfare - when, in fact, they do! To add, legal, illegal, USC, whatever - it's wrong and irresponsible to keep having children to receive more welfare benefits! I'm not a racist nor in violation of any act. Simply stating a well known fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    You are arguing that b/c of the child is a USC and the parent is illegal, the parent is also getting welfare benefits. That is not the case. If the child is a USC and meets certain guidelines set forth by the state/federal government, then the child receives the benefits only if the parent is illegal. The problem is that b/c the child is under the age of atonement, then it is paid to the parent on behalf of the child, yet it is still the child receiving the benefit. Amerlia's statement is generally accurate with some exceptions.

    Illegal immigrants do receive emergency services, but that is not solely defined as "welfare benefits" Welfare benefits, as defined by USCIS, includes AFDC, SSDI, SSI, and other federally funded welfare benefits. Perhaps your definition is more broad to include unemployment or other work related benefits?

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    The U.S. Citizen child is not an illegal alien, but it doesn't change the fact that some aliens (both legal and illegal) and citizens, are notorious dead-beat parents who have outstanding child support debts amounting to thousands and thousands, and the state is forced to pick up the slack. These individuals expose their own children to severe emotional distress, intentionally and maliciously creating a burden on society of substantial proportions. These actions are not the result of some inability to pay, or some extraordinary consequences or a misunderstanding of the law, but the known and forceable results of intentional acts caused by greed, it's all about money.

    Nobody decides intentionally to get sick, providing healthcare is a matter of humanitarian implications. However, when it comes to failure to pay child support, damages are caused because another decided he or she doesn't want to pay an obligation, because another decided to keep the money, and that's a very different matter; these are intentional acts with predictable consequences and should carry severe weight upon the perpetrators. Note that child support orders are mandated by the Court and the Court will not order an obligation knowing the affected parent cannot cover it.

    Nobody should be able to qualify for any form of legalization as long as their child support obligations are not completely satisfied and there's documented evidence to prove it. For once, people should be held accountable for the children they decide to bring into this world, they're not "things" or mistakes, they're precious human beings!

    Leave a comment:


  • ntfd3
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    Hudson,

    I don't dispute that anchor babies are US citizens at all. I was simply challenging Amarles statement that illegals do not receive welfare - when, in fact, they do! To add, legal, illegal, USC, whatever - it's wrong and irresponsible to keep having children to receive more welfare benefits! I'm not a racist nor in violation of any act. Simply stating a well known fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    so in retrospect its the USC CHILD receiving benefits NOT THE ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    With regards to this proposed bill, what worries me is the complete lack of equity requirements and the absurd definition of "criminal" activity.

    The bill should require the alien the demonstrate he or she has not been convicted of a CIMT, aggravated felony or crime of violence. Rendering an alien ineligible for littering or failure to wear a seat-belt, speeding or failure to stop is not what INA intends when it screens for criminals. Regulatory offenses, all of them, by definition are not crimes of intent, they're a "new species" of offense and are considered "petty" by the criminal justice system. These offenses do not carry the constitutional right to a jury trial, and if it's decided that no jail time is to be imposed, the right to appointed counsel is waived.

    Some legislations allow, in some cases and as a matter of discretion, the disposition of these petty offenses in a special court, where the case is proven by preponderance of evidence and not beyond the reasonable doubt. These are not considered "convictions" so we'll have cases in the same jurisdiction and regarding the same crime when two identically placed individuals will be treated differently by the new bill. Equal protection anyone?

    Further, the bill is completely silent when it comes to some rehabilitation statutes like the FFOA, what about reconciling two federal statutes, that cannot be that hard but is not done at all.

    The problems could be easily solved by re-defining criminal ineligibility and excluding aliens when:

    - The alien has been convicted of a CIMT, regardless of the sentence considered or imposed.
    (This provision would allow easy and quick screening by using current definitions of CIMT and existing case-law excluding aliens convicted of any crime including fraud, theft and criminal misrepresentation)

    OR

    - The alien has been convicted of any crime carrying a maximum sentence of imprisonment of more than six months and the alien was actually incarcerated following the imposition of sentence for any period of time.
    (This would exclude serial offenders and first offenders convicted of serious crimes).

    OR

    - The alien has been convicted of a crime, regardless of the sentence imposed or considered, when the use of violence is an element of the offense. (This would allow exclusions of aliens convicted of assault, battery and even public fighting).

    - Consideration of foreign conviction and convictions in absentia: Foreign convictions are considered valid only when the accused is ensured reasonable due process and fundamental judicial fairness. Convictions in absentia are considered valid only when the alien was aware of, and participated in, the judicial proceedings. Representation by counsel shall be deemed to be participation for the purposes of this paragraph. In any case, to be considered a conviction the underlying offense must be recognized as a criminal act in the United States.
    (This is compatible with already defined guidelines by the State Department regarding foreign convictions).

    - Political offenses: Purely political offenses are not considered when they do not involve the element of violence in any way, by threat or use, to any degree.

    These requirements are far more strict than those presented by the Senate Bill, and even the re-defined grounds of admissibility proposed by H.R.4437, but since this legalization program is a very special measure, it seems reasonable to exclude all aliens convicted of CIMT, violent and dangerous offenders. Worded this way, the provisions would not render ineligible any alien convicted of a minor, regulatory offense, it would not create conflict or even a circuit split when it comes to first-time violations of ordinances or traffic laws that carry very small penalties, and would be compatible with the intent of the FFOA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ProudUSC:
    Amarles - ever heard of 'anchor babies'. Do a little web research and you'll find your statement to be completely false! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    "Anchor babies" as you put them, are US citizens defined under the 14th amendment and are entitled to the full rights and privileges under the US Constitution. If you are questioning the nationality of the birth right of that citizen, then you are effectively violating Title VII of t he Civil Rights Act, a federal and/or state offense because the parents happen to be of a different nationality.

    Congratulations, you just now defined yourself as a racist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    Some jurisdictions, at a very local level, do allow some immigrants to receive (restricted) benefits. The benefits in question are not the point, but instead the immigrant should be required to show "equity", meaning employment, self-support, family or economic ties, to be able to receive consideration for ANY legalization program.

    Allowing a dead-beat to obtain legal status while preventing a person convicted of a traffic violation 20 years ago makes no sense.

    H.R.750 is one of the best reform bills I've seen, but when it comes to legalization, the original McCain-Kennedy approach is hard to beat.

    Leave a comment:


  • SunDevilUSA
    replied
    Illegals can indeed get welfare benefits. I see illegals with food stamps all the time. The American taxpayer is supporting the illegals' kids...while the illegals send their own money to our parasitic and corrupt neighbor to the south.

    NO AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS. NO AMNESTY FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE TOO IMPORTANT TO RESPECT AMERICA'S SOVEREIGNTY AND RULE OF LAW.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    In my opinion, and I think most would agree with me, equity has to be the base of any measure of clemency. I would prefer to see steady employment and conduct that evidences a commitment to society rather than physical presence and the fact that you have a "minimum" knowledge of the English language as the foundation of eligibility.

    The "no criminal record" requirement is not trivial, most people do not know that signing a traffic citation and paying a ticket is, in reality, a guilty plea to the charged misdemeanor. Actually, some states define all traffic offenses as "misdemeanors" but dispose of them by citation instead of arrest. Under this assumption, a person convicted of a traffic offense would not be eligible.

    The program specifically calls for "convictions in the U.S.", so, there's absolutely nothing that would prevent a person convicted of a horrible crime and who entered without inspection 10 years ago from obtaining legal status. The criminal provisions should adapt to current INA and not try to re-invent the wheel to appear "strict" while in reality producing absurd results.

    I think the bill would be better off without the legalization program. The reform part of the bill is actually real good, but the legalization program makes no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • amarles
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No requirement to pay backed taxes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I though to qualify you have to speak english, have no criminal record and proof of paid taxes for every year in this country, otherwise do not qualify...

    Leave a comment:


  • amarles
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Under this approach, an alien living on welfare would qualify while an alien employed for 4.9 years and who has never obtained benefits would not. This approach solely based on physical presence is an invitation to fraud. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Houston, just to clarify some negative thoughts,
    no alien lives on welfare...all illegal have to work, there are no benefits for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    H.R.750 combines immigration reform with a legalization program, it's the first initiative introduced in the 110th Congress that relates to "comprehensive reform". The bill has some positive and negative factors:

    The Positive:
    - The bill does take care of reform in a very sensible way. Most of the changes are not new, but they reverse the legislation to rationalize the concept of aggravated felony and CIMT. Under this bill, an aggravated felony would be indeed an "aggravated" crime, meriting quick and expedited removal.

    - Provides meaningful, discretionary relief for families.

    - Provides for specialized review for family-based petitions.

    - Eliminates the absurd consequences of presuming felony non-CIMT crimes to be less serious than misdemeanor CIMT.

    - Respects the authority and value of the FFOA when it comes to simple possession offenses.

    - Respects the authority of the criminal courts when it comes to imposition of sentences. Once again, the sentence becomes the punishment imposed upon the offender and not the punishment that "could have been" imposed. This change actually takes into consideration and respects the authority of criminal courts when it comes to the case-by-case evaluation and disposition of criminal offenses.

    - Consolidates the waiver authority and makes provides for special considerations of the interest of U.S. citizens. This is perhaps the most significant change incorporated into this initiative.

    - Restores the authority of the Judicial System to review some controversial petitions. Also, a very significant improvement.

    In conclusion, the "reform" part of the bill is sound, significant, substantial and beneficial. It would improve INA to become a fair instrument, allowing for the removal of dangerous criminals and providing relief for families.

    The Negative: The "uncomprehensive" Legalization Program

    The bill provides for people convicted of "no crimes" to obtain legal status if the alien has resided in the U.S. for five years "prior to the enactment". This approach is problematic, to say the least, because of the following reasons:

    - No Equity Consideration: There's no consideration for the actual equities of the alien, no consideration for a history of employment, or a history of contributions to society. Under this approach, an alien living on welfare would qualify while an alien employed for 4.9 years and who has never obtained benefits would not. This approach solely based on physical presence is an invitation to fraud.

    - The "no crime" provision. Instead of adopting the rational approach already conceived by 212(a)(2), the "no crime" provision would ban those convicted of some regulatory offenses if they're described as misdemeanors. Some people would be disqualified because of "littering", jaywalking, driving an unsafe vehicle or "failure to wear a seat-belt" if the offenses are described as misdemeanors, even petty misdemeanors with no constitutional right to a jury trial. This would be incredibly unfair to many who have been convicted of non-CIMT traffic offenses or petty offenses defined as misdemeanors under the vehicle code or city ordinances carrying maximum sentences of less than 90 days. This is perhaps the worst provision of this bill.

    - No requirement to pay backed taxes, no requirement to honor civil liabilities. Under this approach, a dead-beat parent would qualify, a person who failed to pay restitution would also qualify but a person convicted of a misdemeanor and who has never served a day in prison would not. Again, absurd double-standard.

    - The physical presence requirement does not stop time at introduction, rather it stops time at enactment.

    Legalization is an extraordinary measure and should be available only to those with enough equity, not to anybody who has merely been present in the country for a certain time. Even if the person is a dead-beat, the person would qualify provided the physical presence requirement is met.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    I cannot predict the future, I will only offer my humble opinion on this very controversial matter.

    It's the common agreement that many provisions were incorporated into the senate bill not because of merit but because such provisions would make the reconciliation process "easier" against the now infamous house immigration bill. H.R.4437 is now recognized to be a major blunder that directly affected the 2006 midterms.

    It's also known that all efforts failed because House Republicans simply refused to consider the bill. I would say that that particular refusal was somehow aided by the Senate's last minute decision to incorporate some tax-related provisions thus creating a convenient "way out" for those who wanted to avoid the issue.

    In any case, the picture is very different this year; the House has passed legislation strongly opposed by the GOP in a relatively easy fashion. This time around it's the Senate who will become the decisive body and, if an agreement is reached, the House will probably pass or even soften the provisions contained in the Senate bill.

    Both the Chair of the House Judiciary and the Chair of the Immigration subcommittee favor immigration reform, and I mean "reform" unrelated to amnesty or legalization. That's a very positive factor, one that at least gives hope to those who want to see INA transformed into a rational, efficient instrument reflective of American values and traditions. In the Senate, Sen Leahy and Sen Kennedy both favor true reform. Sen Durbin will surely push the DREAM Act once again, also a very positive initiative aimed directly at the children. On the GOP side, there's voices of reason, including Sen. Specter, McCain, Hagel and others. There's also GOP Senators that will take any opportunity to try and destroy any initiative that could be seen as beneficial for immigrants, such as Sen Sessions.

    In the final balance, I do believe that the a bill could reach the president's desk this year. If last year, the Senate was able to produce a bill, this year it should be easier for them to reach an agreement and the obstacle presented by the House is no longer present, so the stage is set.

    There's already some "legislation" introduced in the Senate and the House. Most of these bills are punctual and some are incomplete. The only real bill introduced is H.R.750 by Jackson-Lee. This particular bill contains a simple legalization plan but more importantly, it mirrors the efforts of Mr. Conyers when it comes to substantial reform. This could have a big chance of making it through the House Judiciary.

    The Senate's approach could be something pretty much like the old "McCain-Kennedy" bill, and probably will evolve to become something similar to S.2611. I don't believe some of the provisions of the old Senate Bill will make it this time around though.

    Leave a 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