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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew View Post
They are not at this point coming for jobs. They are coming for the amnesty Obama will be granting them and also the food stamps they will be getting. The only thing they need is some employer giving them false employment documents, and being they are masters at creating false I.D.'s this is easy enough to prove they have been here for over 5 years.
They won't be deported.
Bingo! They all know if they reach U.S. soil, they're home free. Obama has rolled out the welcome mat. Why wouldn't they come?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:04 AM
 
153 posts, read 108,563 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
What I don't get is that they love their country so much, why don't they fight for it? Why don't they unite and rebel against the corrupt government and the cartels? They sure as heck know how to pick a fight in the US with their demands. Using the very civil rights that Americans have died defending.

People have died and will continue to die in other countries fighting the same thing that exists in Mexico - a corrupt government, poverty, jobs, some under military rule. Why do Mexicans run instead of staying and fighting for their country?
Gun laws may be a major factor to this. There is only one gun shop in the country and it is government run in the capital. The guns allowed are strictly weaker than police arms. Only the government and cartels have guns. Guns of any real consequence at least. An armed revolution is diffilcult, and using political means is not an option because of how corrupt PRI is. Mexico may have driven out Spain, but it still has the imperial system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,550,867 times
Reputation: 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Knight View Post
Gun laws may be a major factor to this. There is only one gun shop in the country and it is government run in the capital. The guns allowed are strictly weaker than police arms. Only the government and cartels have guns. Guns of any real consequence at least. An armed revolution is diffilcult, and using political means is not an option because of how corrupt PRI is. Mexico may have driven out Spain, but it still has the imperial system.
Do you think if they organized and wanted to raise a revolution they could contact Eric Holder to get help regarding the gun issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
...You said your wife and her kids came here legally, so I fail to see a connection. Plus, we can't admit the entire world. If they don't qualify through our legal immigration process, we obviously don't need them.
Hear about the amazing event a few days ago, where U.S. immigration officers saw a boy with a tumor on his neck in Juarez, brought him to the United States for treatment, and provided the family 45-day humanitarian visas?...

When we are talking about some sort of "staying in their own country" alternate path, whomever is out of "their own country" for an event in their life is under the definition. I came too close to losing my life just shy of 25 years ago, while outside my own country. My kids are not U.S. citizens yet, so under your definitions of going back to their own country if they were to become a public charge.

A human element is always going to modify our enforcement of immigration law. The first "amnesty" change that President Obama effected for our immigration system is largely forgotten: He implemented (with less than a year in office) that spouses and minor stepchildren of U.S. citizens that were present under 'K'-class visas would have their cases evaluated independently if their "qualifying relative" died when there was two years or less of marriage.

This was a very big concern for me when I was mobilizing for my fifth deployment. Under prior rules (and there are documented incidents of it happening), my family would lose their ability to stay in the United States if I was killed in action. No qualifying relative = Able to be removed from the country.

I wanted them in Legal Permanent Resident status before I deployed, if nothing more than start a process that I wouldn't be able administer while away (immigration interviews and such will be delayed if all parties cannot attend; My fourth military deployment to the Middle East had been 15 months away from home). When I see blanket statements about immigration that very well would have affected me at the time, I am inclined to object. If someone makes those statements while saying they are only opposed to illegal immigration it lets me know which side of the stance I will be on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:20 PM
 
31,488 posts, read 14,573,470 times
Reputation: 8354
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Hear about the amazing event a few days ago, where U.S. immigration officers saw a boy with a tumor on his neck in Juarez, brought him to the United States for treatment, and provided the family 45-day humanitarian visas?...

When we are talking about some sort of "staying in their own country" alternate path, whomever is out of "their own country" for an event in their life is under the definition. I came too close to losing my life just shy of 25 years ago, while outside my own country. My kids are not U.S. citizens yet, so under your definitions of going back to their own country if they were to become a public charge.

A human element is always going to modify our enforcement of immigration law. The first "amnesty" change that President Obama effected for our immigration system is largely forgotten: He implemented (with less than a year in office) that spouses and minor stepchildren of U.S. citizens that were present under 'K'-class visas would have their cases evaluated independently if their "qualifying relative" died when there was two years or less of marriage.

This was a very big concern for me when I was mobilizing for my fifth deployment. Under prior rules (and there are documented incidents of it happening), my family would lose their ability to stay in the United States if I was killed in action. No qualifying relative = Able to be removed from the country.

I wanted them in Legal Permanent Resident status before I deployed, if nothing more than start a process that I wouldn't be able administer while away (immigration interviews and such will be delayed if all parties cannot attend; My fourth military deployment to the Middle East had been 15 months away from home). When I see blanket statements about immigration that very well would have affected me at the time, I am inclined to object. If someone makes those statements while saying they are only opposed to illegal immigration it lets me know which side of the stance I will be on.
I think you are a bit confused here. Who is suggesting that legal immigrants remain in their own country when they have permission by our government to come here? Reading the various posts and replies I know that is what is being expected of illegal immigrants. In otherwords, all who want to come here can't so those who are refused permission should stay in their own countries and fix them, not legal immigrants.

I fail to understand how the above could make someone have a pro-stance on illegal immigrants/immigration. The chronological history of your family coming here legally and all the other personal stuff has nothing to do with illegal immigation. Just sayin......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Too far from home.
8,743 posts, read 5,550,867 times
Reputation: 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
No, my family is here legally".
No offense, but I asked if they entered the country illegally. I'm sure one can go from illegal to legal status by certain means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by softblueyz View Post
No offense, but I asked if they entered the country illegally. I'm sure one can go from illegal to legal status by certain means.
As an answer to whether they entered illegally: No. Never broken any U.S. immigration law.

But someone can also enter legally and go out-of-status, enter illegally and gain status, and "go from illegal to legal status by certain means".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,813,362 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Hear about the amazing event a few days ago, where U.S. immigration officers saw a boy with a tumor on his neck in Juarez, brought him to the United States for treatment, and provided the family 45-day humanitarian visas?...

When we are talking about some sort of "staying in their own country" alternate path, whomever is out of "their own country" for an event in their life is under the definition. I came too close to losing my life just shy of 25 years ago, while outside my own country. My kids are not U.S. citizens yet, so under your definitions of going back to their own country if they were to become a public charge.

A human element is always going to modify our enforcement of immigration law. The first "amnesty" change that President Obama effected for our immigration system is largely forgotten: He implemented (with less than a year in office) that spouses and minor stepchildren of U.S. citizens that were present under 'K'-class visas would have their cases evaluated independently if their "qualifying relative" died when there was two years or less of marriage.

This was a very big concern for me when I was mobilizing for my fifth deployment. Under prior rules (and there are documented incidents of it happening), my family would lose their ability to stay in the United States if I was killed in action. No qualifying relative = Able to be removed from the country.

I wanted them in Legal Permanent Resident status before I deployed, if nothing more than start a process that I wouldn't be able administer while away (immigration interviews and such will be delayed if all parties cannot attend; My fourth military deployment to the Middle East had been 15 months away from home). When I see blanket statements about immigration that very well would have affected me at the time, I am inclined to object. If someone makes those statements while saying they are only opposed to illegal immigration it lets me know which side of the stance I will be on.
How does ANY of this relate to people entering this country illegally or overstaying visas? Furthermore, your issue involved a standard legal immigration process. Your wife and children were not escaping famine, and were not in harm's way. In addition, they are now all legally here with you, so what's the problem? Why are you so fixated on what could have happened, rather than being thankful for what did? Frankly, your family saga has become rather tiresome. You need to give it a rest.

However, given your ordeal with the legal immigration process, I would think you would have much more respect for those who enter this country through legal channels, rather than your unwavering support for the millions (primarily Mexican) who skip the process by entering illegally. I find it strange, to say the least.

Nor is your military deployment germane to this discussion. You volunteered to serve. You were not drafted and forced to go overseas, unlike millions who served in prior wars. If you didn't want to risk a wartime deployment, you should not have joined the military, because that is always a possibility. It's just that simple.

We are an extremely compassionate and generous nation. But, this BS has taken its toll. We can't continue to be the dumping ground for the world's impoverished, to the detriment of our own citizens. Funny, you can think of countless reasons for illegals to remain in this country, primarily based on compassion. But, I have yet to see you show even a modicum of compassion for U. S. citizens who have lost livelihoods, had wages depressed, or were even victimized or killed due to the failure of our government to enforce our immigration laws. Why?

This isn't an issue of a few thousand seeking refuge in the U.S. for whatever reason. At issue, are millions of foreigners who believe, we as a nation, owe them a better life, while refusing to even make the slightest effort to improve conditions at home. Rather than holding their own government accountable, they flee to the U.S. and demand our taxpayers supply their needs. In the process, they are draining us dry. This level of abuse is unsustainable, and it has to stop. It's time for Mexico to grow up, stop sucking at the teat of U.S. taxpayers, and take care of their own. We have had enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
I think you are a bit confused here. Who is suggesting that legal immigrants remain in their own country when they have permission by our government to come here? Reading the various posts and replies I know that is what is being expected of illegal immigrants. In otherwords, all who want to come here can't so those who are refused permission should stay in their own countries and fix them, not legal immigrants...
Over half of those going to legal residency in each of the recent years have already been present in the United States (typically on non-immigrant visa types). The same way my family was (except we exited while they were in their 'K'-class non-immigrant status to go to the U.S. Consulate in Juarez for Immigrant Visas). What are you confused about? There seems to be some perception that marriage to a U.S. citizen conveys resident status or permission to enter the United States.

Why don't you have the same standard for those even able to legally leave to the United States not to repair their own countries? Wouldn't that solve much of the migration problems throughout the world and historically? Those religious prosecution and mandatory military conscription things?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2012, 01:21 PM
 
Location: John & Ken-ville
13,692 posts, read 15,117,815 times
Reputation: 9491
Senseless deaths.

If they weren't here illegally it never would have happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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