U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2012, 09:27 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,958,315 times
Reputation: 22179

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
So, with U.S. citizens being the typical sponsors for Immediate Relatives (and thus being covered otherwise [but an exception can happen, see below] under a common family plan), wouldn't that mean you desire better access to medical insurance plans for U.S. citizens?...

Sounds like the recent changes to many national plans needs to be adjusted to a grace period: My own coverage cannot add a family member unless they have a Social Security number issued to them (which becomes an immigration chicken-and-egg problem)...
I'm actually more with the OP on this issue.

I don't think it's fair that those with some kind of relative here have all the advantage over those that don't.

I think it's time to limit family sponsorship to spouse and minor children and allow more to come on their ability to work. And limit sponsors to native-born American citizens, not born to illegal aliens.

If someone cannot stand the thought of leaving parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and all their many in-laws behind, then maybe they should consider staying home.

 
Old 01-10-2012, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,030,390 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Ethnicity usually goes along hand and hand with nationality in most cases. Of course economic benefit would be a consideration but I would still strive to try and keep it as even as possible to remain a diverse country without having our identifying culture and language diluted or replaced. The opposite usually occurs when there are too many immigrants from one ethnic/national group. Assimilation is more easily accomplished with diversity rather than colonization.
Either ethnicity or nationality has to be the basis of your "diversity" scheme, you can't identify them as being interchangeable terms throughout the world (for the discussion so far you seem to be basing it primarily on nationality). You're also needing to base that "diversity" against the full U.S. population to keep it diverse. In reality you are trying to bridge immigration into becoming a complex Affirmative Action program.

You've identified it well, your concept of "diversity" is placed ahead of economic and educational considerations...

How well that will mesh with the notions of other posters complaining about educational and economic levels of immigrants already remains to be seen...
 
Old 01-10-2012, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,030,390 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
I'm actually more with the OP on this issue.

I don't think it's fair that those with some kind of [U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Resident] relative here have all the advantage over those that don't.

I think it's time to limit family sponsorship to spouse and minor children and allow more to come on their ability to work. And limit sponsors to native-born American citizens, not born to illegal aliens.

If someone cannot stand the thought of leaving parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and all their many in-laws behind, then maybe they should consider staying home.
How many times are "Immediate Relatives" going to be misrepresented here? The sibling category has quotas that actually equalize countries better. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are relationships that cannot be sponsored at all. "In-laws" (spouses of their siblings, and minor nephews and nieces) are also quota-based, and particularly long wait times.

Leave behind the hype, and study the I-130 qualifications better...

You are also wanting to treat naturalized U.S. citizens at lesser abilities of citizenship. "Anchor Babies" are native-born, in so much that their birth even meets the criteria of that aspect for becoming a U.S. President. My little girl, legally immigrating at 8 years-old, is not allowed to later sponsor an immigrant spouse (which may not even be from her native country, and is disqualified from the abilities a Legal Permanent Resident has currently to sponsor a spouse and minor children)? I really can't understand the disparity of such a stance to the common complaint that U.S. citizens are not being treated equally.
 
Old 01-10-2012, 10:19 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,958,315 times
Reputation: 22179
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
How many times are "Immediate Relatives" going to be misrepresented here? The sibling category has quotas that actually equalize countries better. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are relationships that cannot be sponsored at all. "In-laws" would be also quota-based, and particularly long wait times.

Leave behind the hype, and study the I-130 qualifications better...

You are also wanting to treat naturalized U.S. citizens at lesser abilities of citizenship. "Anchor Babies" are native-born, in so much that their birth even meets the criteria of that aspect for becoming a U.S. President. My little girl, legally immigrating at 8 years-old, is not allowed to later sponsor an immigrant spouse (which may not even be from her native country)? I really can't understand the disparity of such a stance to the common complaint that U.S. citizens are not being treated equally.
But you know how it works. You sponsor your parents and siblings, including inlaws, they sponsor their parents and siblings and in-laws, and they all sponsor their own children and parensts and siblings and in-laws.

Like the OP asked -- any Mexican or other who has some kind of family member here has an instant in, while much more worthy types have little chance. The family members may be complete sloths but having a relative here is their ace card while much better types have little chance to immigrate.

I believe immigration laws need reforming so that a fair chance is given to more people from all kinds of countries.

As far as you step daughter -- oh -- I left off all the step parents, siblings, children that are also able to be sponsored - who is left for her to have to bring in? You've brought in her mother and siblings.

At least with the anchor babies, they should not be able to sponsor their relatives who have come here illegally. That should be out of the question. Yes, limit sponsorship of immigrants to native-born American citizens, no illegal should be allowed to be sponsored by anchor babies they gave birth to for that purpose. Spouse and minor children. We don't exactly need infirm elderly coming here who have no real means of support and who will become very costly to the taxpayers.
 
Old 01-11-2012, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,030,390 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
But you know how it works. You sponsor your parents and siblings, including inlaws, they sponsor their parents and siblings and in-laws, and they all sponsor their own children and parensts and siblings and in-laws.

Like the OP asked -- any Mexican or other who has some kind of [U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Resident] family member here has an instant [or quota-based wait] in, while much more worthy types have little chance. The family members may be complete sloths but having a [U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Resident] relative here is their ace card while much better types have little chance to immigrate.

I believe immigration laws need reforming so that a fair chance is given to more people from all kinds of countries.

As far as you step daughter -- oh -- I left off all the step parents, siblings, children that are also able to be sponsored - who is left for her to have to bring in? You've brought in her mother and siblings.

At least with the anchor babies, they should not be able to sponsor their relatives who have come here illegally. That should be out of the question. Yes, limit sponsorship of immigrants to native-born American citizens, no illegal should be allowed to be sponsored by anchor babies they gave birth to for that purpose. Spouse and minor children. We don't exactly need infirm elderly coming here who have no real means of support and who will become very costly to the taxpayers.
But the sponsorship is not for those relatives - You're referencing what would have to be a later sponsorship relation. By the time that the required citizenship is gained to sponsor someone yourself (and further delayed by quotas), decades, even lifetimes, have passed.

I recognize that the reality is harder for you to generate that irrational fear however...

I provided the example of a Foreign National spouse for my stepdaughter. It could be up to 50 years in the future, and not necessarily the country she originated from. It even brings up the possibility of an interesting irony to what you want to set up:

For your employment-based immigration plan, do you allow the worker to bring in a spouse and minor children (as it currently is)? So, if my stepdaughter keeps her current status (as a Legal Permanent Resident), is she in the same position to sponsor a Foreign National spouse? But gaining derivative citizenship from her mother naturalizing, she loses that ability as a U.S. citizen?

Again, I am hearing schemes that an immigrant with no previous ties to the United States be given more abilities than our own citizens. I thought that was the main complaint here, that U.S. citizens are being minimized compared to immigrants (legal and illegal), and there is too much being lost through diversification.

How can such opposite opinions even be reconciled within the same forum, much less by the same contributor? LiquidReins provided what was said to be easy legal immigration paths, perhaps your "more worthy/better types" can try those routes instead? The details for these plans being brought up seem to have more complexity, inconsistent or outright conflicting specifications, and unwieldy implementations.
 
Old 01-11-2012, 04:04 AM
Yac
 
5,883 posts, read 6,319,186 times
Once again I genuinely feel dumber after reading through an illegal immigration than I felt before. Admit it, you're all just fighting for the sake of fighting, right ?

Closed.
Yac.
__________________
Forum Rules
City-Data.com homepage
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top