Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. The standard is you get cancellation of removal if you can show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative (which a US citizen child of any age would be- they do not have to be 21). Exceptional and extremely unusual means the child will suffer more than what a normal child would suffer by the removal of their parent to another country. That's why the cases where the child has a disability are almost guaranteed to be winning cases.
Understood, here is the form (for those that were not Legal Permanent Residents, which is a different form and criteria) as a reference to others: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoirforms/eoir42b.pdf
LOL. I do stand corrected on that. Always forget the A
INA §240A(a) is CoR for those whom have been Legal Permanent Residents...
INA §240A(b) is CoR for those that have not been Legal Permanent Residents. The larger requirement (when abuse from a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse is not alleged) to CoR is the length of presence in the United States (with relatively good behavior) of at least ten years (seven years for those that have been LPRs). So we aren't talking about the "cross to have a baby" misnomer.
Probably if we pursue discussion of CoR further, it is going to need some numbers presented...
INA §240A(a) is CoR for those whom have been Legal Permanent Residents...
INA §240A(b) is CoR for those that have not been Legal Permanent Residents. The larger requirement (when abuse from a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse is not alleged) to CoR is the length of presence in the United States (with relatively good behavior) of at least ten years (seven years for those that have been LPRs). So we aren't talking about the "cross to have a baby" misnomer.
Probably if we pursue discussion of CoR further, it is going to need some numbers presented...
The cap is 4000 green cards a year but those who get granted after the 4000 cap will get to renew their work permits until they have a green card available.
And the ten years is a requirement though many immigration judges will not require you to prove your presence until the actual merits hearing ("trial") meaning you can still file the application, get a work permit, and if you don't have a strong case, have your proceedings administratively closed without ever even getting to that point where you have to show you've been here ten years. And ICE is generally far more concerned about criminal records.
The cap is 4000 green cards a year but those who get granted after the 4000 cap will get to renew their work permits until they have a green card available.
And the ten years is a requirement though many immigration judges will not require you to prove your presence until the actual merits hearing ("trial") meaning you can still file the application, get a work permit, and if you don't have a strong case, have your proceedings administratively closed without ever even getting to that point where you have to show you've been here ten years. And ICE is generally far more concerned about criminal records.
I can break down the reality of the situation fairly concisely having worked in the immigration field for at this point several years.
First, US citizens cannot legally sponsor their parents until they turn 21. So technically "anchor babies" take a long time to sink to the bottom, so to speak.
But functionally, that makes no difference.
This is generally what happens, at least in California: once an illegal alien has an anchor baby they are immediately eligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240B of the Immigration and Nationality Act should they ever be picked up and placed in proceedings because they have a qualifying relative. That means even if they get thrown into removal proceedings, they have pretty much bought themselves at least a couple years in the country right off the bat if they have a semi decent attorney and/or a sympathetic judge and/or huge backlogs. And while they're in proceedings they get work permits so long as they have a pending cancellation application on file.
If the child has any kind of semi-serious disability, it's even better because that means they'd likely win their cancellation case (that's just how the law works). And winning a cancellation case = green card. Even though this "anchor baby" is undoubtedly a higher burden on the US taxpayer. I know of attorneys who will intentionally put their illegal immigrant clients into removal proceedings in situations like this because they know they'll get green cards. And they do get the green cards.
If the child is healthy, the illegal will likely not have a strong cancellation case. But, that's not the end of the line. If the illegal immigrant parent has been here for at least a few years and no criminal record, they'll have an excellent chance of having their removal proceedings administratively closed in the interest of prosecutorial discretion, which some may recall is the initiative Obama put into place in 2011, essentially instructing ICE to designate certain cases as "low priority" for removal. The functional result is that such individuals have their removal proceedings closed, and in the mean time can continue to renew their work permits here in the US indefinitely. The widespread presumption in the legal community is that these individuals will eventually be granted a path to citizenship. Of course, this is based on the assumption that they don't acquire any criminal convictions in the future.
Thus, while anchor babies do not provide a very efficient way for direct immigration, with the help of attorneys who can perform some cursory legal acrobatics, most people who have anchor babies will end up staying in the US -legally- one way or another. At least if they are in Ninth Circuit territory... I can't speak for states in other circuits but I imagine it isn't terribly different.
Thanks for backing up what we have said all along and why the U.S. born kids of illegal alien parents are called "anchor babies". Once an instant citizen is born there is very little likelihood that the parents will be deported especially as you said with the initiative that Obama put into place that only "convicted" felon types will be removed from our country.
Freedom of movement asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.
The words: "to leave that state and return at any time" does NOT give a person permission to go INTO another "state", which means "country" with asking 1st. Sheesh!
lol good job skipping over the main point of the post to point out minute details. But you failed to click on the link of that section to "read more". If you had, you would have seen: Some immigrants' rights advocates assert that human beings have a fundamental human right to mobility not only within a state but between states. - which is what we are talking about here.
Still waiting to hear why you support open borders between states but not between countries, and any moral or logical justification for it.
If you are going to disagree, give a good reason for it. Don't just say "well, that's not what it means" - yes it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
If Pablo hadn't violated our immigration laws Billy would have gotten the job and wouldn't have to be on unemployment. Billy being a citizen working for a fair wage would probably not have to be subsidized by government handouts as Pablo the cheap, illegal laborer would. Pablo would either have to be working under the table where no income taxes were collected to cover his social costs or committed felony document fraud. The Billy scenario becoming employed would have been repeated if John from Utah had gotten the job. However, without cheap, illegal labor here Billy would have eventually gotten a job anyway. Just what jobs are there where there is a lack of American workers for a "fair" wage? Even crop picking jobs have unlimited visas for LEGAL foreign workers and that might be the only job that most Americans can't or won't do for living. Yet these greedy employers still hire illegals. It's all about profit nothing else!
Your name should be OldGeneralizations...
Assuming that Pablo is paid less than Billy would have been - where did I say that? I said they applied for the same job, implies same pay.
You assume he's not paying income taxes, lol why would he not be paying income taxes? He would be paying the same as Billy would have.
You assume that Billy could just get another job if Ron (or John, as you changed him to) "took" the one he originally wanted, but you don't make the same assumption in the Pablo scenario. Why? Because it ruins your argument if you don't make such ridiculous assumptions? If Billy loses job A but gains job B - wouldn't that apply regardless of WHO got job A?
Can you come up with any argument that doesn't require unfounded generalizations that are untrue? Or is that the only way you can support your position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroc5156
Remember this when your wages are lowered when Paco comes along and is willing to do more for less.
Perhaps all these new immigrants should move to Maine? I mean, they have a lot of land and not many people living there after all.
They should. That is what I did. I "stole a job" which pays me $15,000 more per year than the one that I had back in Michigan. What a tragedy for the locals - a new taxing paying citizen who works and shops locally. I can't believe they haven't run me out of town yet.
Anchor babies as it stands today are considered citizens of this country. They should be able to sponsor a family member. Provided said family member meets the exact same criteria as any other applicant wishing to immigrate to this nation. They must apply in nation of origin. They must pass a criminal background check. In short the parents must be follow the rules that all other (Legal) immigrants must follow. No free pass and certainly no get out of jail free cards. Crimes that would get a legal citizen jailed should at the very least disqualify an illegal.
An illegal alien parent is more likely to be in a relationship with a U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Resident than another illegal alien. This topic always is phrased incorrectly as a woman crossing to give birth, or the child is from two illegal alien parents.
..
Very doubtful the illegal is in any relationship with a US citizen or LPR because if that were true, the illegal would be legally sponsored instead of coming here illegally, and the citizen or LPR would be paying for the births of these children when is almost never what happens.
Birth tourism is actually big all along the border. A $169 border crossing card makes it very easy to come over to use hospitals and then stay forever once the US citizen baby is born.
Very doubtful the illegal is in any relationship with a US citizen or LPR because if that were true, the illegal would be legally sponsored instead of coming here illegally, and the citizen or LPR would be paying for the births of these children when is almost never what happens...
The I-601 waiver can only be used if it is a marriage to a U.S. citizen. Marriage, in itself, provides no immigration status. Again, this is the same material we are going through over and over for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
...Birth tourism is actually big all along the border. A $169 border crossing card makes it very easy to come over to use hospitals and then stay forever once the US citizen baby is born.
And still never any sources to back up your claims...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a tragedy for the locals - a new taxing paying citizen who works and shops locally. I can't believe they haven't run me out of town yet. 
