Mexico having 2nd thoughts about amnesty

[Enough]

Looks like the bean-counters (pardon the pun) down south realized that the pending amnesty would allow illegals to bring their families to "El Norte" and would kill remittances being sent home by 40%. Aye caramba! Mexico is pushing for a "guest-worker" program which will promote "circular migration". Hmmm, sounds a lot like what Bush wants. They want Mexicans to "remain" Mexicans, but with the ability to enter the U.S. for work on a limited basis and then return home. I'm sure the money has nothing to do with their change of heart. They have their lobbyist working on it as we speak. How ironic, Mexico might be the one who kills the amnesty.

Now the Kyl and Cornyn amendment makes perfect sense. They would eliminate the overstayers from the equation and give illegal Mexicans "temporary" worker status for a limited time and then "adios compadre". Workers wouldn't be able to bring their families with them either.

The plot thickens.

[Enough]

Looks like the bean-counters (pardon the pun) down south realized that the pending amnesty would allow illegals to bring their families to "El Norte" and would kill remittances being sent home by 40%. Aye caramba! Mexico is pushing for a "guest-worker" program which will promote "circular migration". Hmmm, sounds a lot like what Bush wants. They want Mexicans to "remain" Mexicans, but with the ability to enter the U.S. for work on a limited basis and then return home. I'm sure the money has nothing to do with their change of heart. They have their lobbyist working on it as we speak. How ironic, Mexico might be the one who kills the amnesty.

Now the Kyl and Cornyn amendment makes perfect sense. They would eliminate the overstayers from the equation and give illegal Mexicans "temporary" worker status for a limited time and then "adios compadre". Workers wouldn't be able to bring their families with them either.

The plot thickens.

[ELJEFE]

never, cause the money will find its way there one way or another.

[Enough]

How do you figure that ELJEFE? Illegals send money home to their families. If their families are in the U.S. with them, who are they going to send the money too?

[ELJEFE]

One of the main reasons that Illegals have been bringing their families to the US is because of the dangers involved in crossing the border. Once they have the freedom to go to Mexico and come back freely they won't be bringing their entire family here.

[marmaduk]

But in the same token, why would they let their family live in Mexico, when USA eclipse it in pretty much every category? They'll get better education, better medical care, better quality of living, etc. If the amnesty passed, they'll be able to bring their family in legally as well.

[Enough]

Whoa there ELJEFE. Looks like that one went right over your head.

Illegals send billions back to Mexico because their families are still in Mexico and not here in the U.S. If the current amnesty bill passes then those illegals in the U.S. who qualify will be allowed to legally bring their families here to live with them.

Why would they leave their families down in Mexico and migrate back and forth if they don't have to? Their jobs, better schools, and other benefits are here in the U.S.

The illegals who have their families here with them already aren't sending any money back to Mexico.

doh!

If Mexico get's what it really wants, there will be no amnesty. Instead only a temporary guest worker program that requires participants to leave the U.S. after a specified time ("circular migration"). This program would not allow them to bring their families here with them and would not provide an automatic path to permanent legal status. This would ensure that the remittances will continue to flow down south.

[ELJEFE]

Yes, you are correct if amnesty is granted many will be bringing their families here, however not everybody wants to leave their homeland. Many prefer to stay in Mexico so wether they bring their immediate family to the US, Mexican people have very strong family values so they will always have family ties in Mexico who they will be sending money to.

[Enough]

That is correct. Not all illegals want to become U.S. citizens. They just want to work and go home and have no intentions of bringing their families to the U.S. However, the Mexican government estimates that a lot of them will if they are granted amnesty and don't have to return to Mexico. This will end up costing Mexico 40% of all remittances currently flowing into the Mexican economy. That's roughly 8 billion dollars and would be a huge hit to their economy.

[Houston]

Sen Kyl already spoke volumes about his intent, that statement alone could be used by the courts to interpret the statute. An overstay is a much less severe of an offense when compared to an EWI, INA recognizes that and so do the Courts and the BIA. Simply because Sen. Kyl has an amendment that contradicts his intent as stated, it does not mean that the law will favor an EWI over an overstay. I would give it a couple months before this issue is permanently resolved by BIA; as I see it, it won't even reach circuit court level.

[Enough]

Houston,

Still, you have to hand it to him. Kyl is a sly one. He defends his amendment by saying that it would disqualify felons, those with 3 midemeanors, but fails to reveal that his amendment would have disqualified close to 4 million illegls with the included "subject to an order of removal" language. He tried to justify it during the debate by saying that absconders and those who have been deported should not be included in the amnesty. Now he's trying to make Sen. Reid look like the bad guy for blocking an amendment that Kyle claims would have purged felons from the program. Politics.

As for the courts using his statement to interpret the statute, can you provide an example of where the courts have reached into the congressional record when interpreting a statute? Statutes are usually strictly construed.

[Houston]

First off, statutes must be interpreted according to the intent of Congress. There's nothing to prevent this from happening. Also, the statutes must be "reconciled" with the rest of the bill, to create uniformity and avoid what some courts have come to call "draconian" or "arbitrary" results.
But most importantly, there's a big debate going on about the dangers of ignoring an order of deportation and granting status to such "dangerous and irresponsible people", some even call them criminals. But that is what's going on today, right this second. When it comes to certain Asians and other so-called "special immigrants", outstanding orders of removal are ignored and status may be granted. This is yet another atrocity under INA, these people seem to have reached a safe-heaven not even available to immediate relatives, even when the courts consider such relationship the highest equity under immigration law. Politics, true, but also a reckless disregard for the actual truth, and some consider that an element of "intent to deceive"...

[boitmanis]

http://no2allmails.com/pages/ptp.php?refid=boitmanis

[Marasmus]

go to bed boitmans, we dont need any stupid links.

[Lerka Я]

axuительный линк.