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.
Right to life
Freedom from torture
Freedom from slavery
Right to a fair trial
Freedom of speech
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Freedom of movement
No where is there a right to hold a job or any of that other nonsense.
What you (continually) fail to realize is that when a "foreigner" moves somewhere to take a local job, he is not "stealing it", he is becoming a "local".
He is becoming part of the local community and is keeping that job here, by working it.
Pablo lives in Mexico, Billy lives in Arizona. Both are potential janitors. Pablo moves to Arizona and gets the job instead of Billy.
You think a job has been lost. But it hasn't. The job is still here, and it is being worked by someone who lives here. Just because the guy's name is Pablo or he came from Mexico doesn't change the fact that he is NOW a guy living in Arizona working an Arizona job. Nothing from the community at whole was LOST (or "stolen" lol) from this sequence of events.
You are only looking at it from the eyes of Billy. He applied to be a janitor, there was seemingly no one else in town who wanted the job, he expected to get it, and then someone came from elsewhere and got it instead. HE feels like the job was stolen from him. But it WASN'T. He simply didn't get it.
How is this ANY DIFFERENT than: Billy applies to be a janitor, no one else in town does, he expects to get it, all of a sudden Ron from New York moves to town and applies for the same job. Ron gets it instead of Billy.
Please tell me, literally, what the difference here is. Because I fail to see any.
So if your goal is to "protect Arizona jobs for Arizona locals" then you can't have ANY open borders. Not with Mexico, and not with Texas, or California, or New York, either.
And WHY should jobs be reserved for people in a certain area? That seems completely asinine to me. If you can't find work in the place you already live, you SHOULD move somewhere else that you will find work at. You shouldn't close off borders and force companies to hire you ONLY because no one else is available.
From the Wiki link you posted:
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!
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!
As I said earlier the poster in question states a position based on opinion, but presents it as a fact. They challenge others to prove that their opinion is wrong. That can only be done if the individual is willing to accept that their opinion is not fact.
Freedom of movement as that poster presents it is ambiguous at best. I can interpret it to mean free to move into another persons home or to anothers property.
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!
As I said earlier the poster in question states a position based on opinion, but presents it as a fact. They challenge others to prove that their opinion is wrong. That can only be done if the individual is willing to accept that their opinion is not fact.
Freedom of movement as that poster presents it is ambiguous at best. I can interpret it to mean free to move into another persons home or to anothers property.
Exactly, if freedom of movement is meant to be interpreted in it's literal sense then how about my wife and I move into your house tomorrow, tinman? I will bring my pets also. Afterall, I have freedom of movement whether you like it or not. It's my "human right", lol.
Wow, this thread has been veering off-topic (even for my own posts) at points a couple years in the past. It was a blast to review. Can we get back on topic with the statement that U.S. citizens can sponsor their parent(s) and sibling(s) to immigrate, and that really isn't where the argument is?
Wow, this thread has been veering off-topic (even for my own posts) at points a couple years in the past. It was a blast to review. Can we get back on topic with the statement that U.S. citizens can sponsor their parent(s) and sibling(s) to immigrate, and that really isn't where the argument is?
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.
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...
Which I addressed back at #260:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum
I think that is the idea, that the "Anchor Baby" has to be at least 21 years old and be able to financially sponsor parent(s) or sibling(s). The intending immigrant also has to qualify to immigrate, serving out any bars outside the United States. Waivers are extremely uncommon for an adult son or daughter to get for their parent(s)(the hardship has to be for the U.S. citizen, not the intending immigrant).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
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 put 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.
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.
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.
Explain exactly how, especially without that "Anchor Baby" (or spousal) sponsorship, that an illegal alien parent is getting a "Green Card" (highlighted statement above)...
Explain exactly how, especially without that "Anchor Baby" (or spousal) sponsorship, that an illegal alien parent is getting a "Green Card" (highlighted statement above)...
They wouldn't (likely) get a green card without an anchor baby on a cancellation case. My input was based on the presumption that there was an "anchor baby"/qualifying relative since that was the topic of the thread. If they don't have a US citizen child then they'd have to have at least a US citizen or LPR spouse or parent as a qualifying relative for cancellation under 240B.
But yes, even without an anchor baby an illegal immigrant could win cancellation especially if say they have an LPR parent with severe medical issues. Parents do count as qualifying relatives as well.
They wouldn't (likely) get a green card without an anchor baby on a cancellation case. My input was based on the presumption that there was an "anchor baby"/qualifying relative since that was the topic of the thread. If they don't have a US citizen child then they'd have to have at least a US citizen or LPR spouse or parent as a qualifying relative for cancellation under 240B.
But yes, even without an anchor baby an illegal immigrant could win cancellation especially if say they have an LPR parent with severe medical issues. Parents do count as qualifying relatives as well.
So the illegal alien parent is assumed to have a successful CoR from the "Anchor Baby", and is thus gaining legal residency?...
So the illegal alien parent is assumed to have a successful CoR from the "Anchor Baby", and is thus gaining legal residency?...
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.
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.
