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 02-08-2013, 05:25 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,716,526 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
I think you need to re-evaluate your time line.

1st is the naturalization process for the illegal immigrant
2nd time it takes to petition for next of kin
3rd if admitted, time for next of kin to go through naturization process.

Since it is not amnesty, there is no automatic guarantee to citizenship. The estimated 11 million will have to go through the process to be naturalized.

If a bill becomes law, lets see in 10 years how many of the estimated 11 million are going through the process and how many have become naturalized citizens...and of those how many are petitioning for next of kin.
1st is the legalization of the illegal, not the naturalization. 2nd would be the changing from legal status to an accepting visa. 3rd would be naturalization. 4th does not require naturalization to apply for family to also come over, they only need to be here legally.

It is AMNESTY simply by allowing them to legalize while here vs going back to their native country.

I would suspect almost all, once legalized, will petition for their kin to also be allowed visas, they do not have to be naturalized to do so.

From your first link: Tax revenues will increase. Fallacy! Harmful state immigration laws are damaging state economies. Assumption! A path to citizenship would help families access health care. Whats stopping them now for paying for health insurance? U.S. employers need a legalized workforce. There are visas they can use yet choose not to. Letting undocumented immigrants gain legal status would keep families together. Boo Hoo. Young undocumented immigrants would add billions to the economy if they gained legal status. Speculative at best. And DREAMers would boost employment and wages. Assumption.

Your second link uses its own hyperlinks to itself to verify its fallacy.

Your 3rd link is based on assumption.

All 3 links only refer to themselves as proof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2013, 05:25 PM
 
31,912 posts, read 14,699,387 times
Reputation: 8510
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
The implied notion you are putting forward is that the legally sponsored relative of someone that was once an illegal alien is not desirable for both quantity and quality. Legal immigration is proven to promote economic growth, from a population that pays into the system, but are unable to draw most benefits often for a minimum of five years. We hear so much of the time on this forum that legal immigration is not a problem.

Unless you want to block certain legal immigrants by their ethnicity, which returns back to my first sentence here...
The point was not to legalize these illegal imigrants in the first place because part of the problem would be the resulting family chain migration that would occur. We not only don't need these illegal immigrants here by legalizing them but we certainly don't need their extended families here also. That does not negate desiring legal immigrants that go through the normal channels in controlled numbers. However, even at that their immediate families should only be allowed sponsorship. You tried to spin it another way as usual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,022,544 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
The point was not to legalize these illegal imigrants in the first place because part of the problem would be the resulting family chain migration that would occur. We not only don't need these illegal immigrants here by legalizing them but we certainly don't need their extended families here also. That does not negate desiring legal immigrants that go through the normal channels in controlled numbers. However, even at that their immediate families should only be allowed sponsorship. You tried to spin it another way as usual.
The comment I was responding to set a scenario of former illegal aliens gaining legal residency (or incrementally naturalizing to U.S. citizenship) sponsoring their immediate relative to legally immigrate. Why is there a problem with legal "chain migration"? It wouldn't be illegal immigration any more.

Sponsorship rules don't change (nor quotas or qualifications), an "Immediate Relative" is still the same familial relationships. Now you are saying that someone that has not broken any U.S. immigration law before should not be allowed to legally immigrate. Does the concept of having an illegal alien family member stain all of the other relatives somehow?

This has come up on this forum before, "malamute" stated that 1st generation immigrants should not (despite the lawfully nature of their presence) be able to sponsor anyone else for immigration. I contrasted that with a scenario of my youngest stepdaughter immigrating as a child. If she finds an immigrant fiance/spouse at a later point in life (that may not even be from her home country or region), she is not allowed to sponsor him?

These constant insinuations that the origins and ethnicity of immigrants don't make them the same as other legal residents and U.S. citizens need to stop. The objections to illegal immigration always derail over to specifically constraining legal immigration based on ethnicity, origins, and/or "skills". If you want to change legal immigration to your ideal, post in the legal immigration forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 07:01 PM
 
31,912 posts, read 14,699,387 times
Reputation: 8510
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
The comment I was responding to set a scenario of former illegal aliens gaining legal residency (or incrementally naturalizing to U.S. citizenship) sponsoring their immediate relative to legally immigrate. Why is there a problem with legal "chain migration"? It wouldn't be illegal immigration any more.

Sponsorship rules don't change (nor quotas or qualifications), an "Immediate Relative" is still the same familial relationships. Now you are saying that someone that has not broken any U.S. immigration law before should not be allowed to legally immigrate. Does the concept of having an illegal alien family member stain all of the other relatives somehow?

This has come up on this forum before, "malamute" stated that 1st generation immigrants should not (despite the lawfully nature of their presence) be able to sponsor anyone else for immigration. I contrasted that with a scenario of my youngest stepdaughter immigrating as a child. If she finds an immigrant fiance/spouse at a later point in life (that may not even be from her home country or region), she is not allowed to sponsor him?

These constant insinuations that the origins and ethnicity of immigrants don't make them the same as other legal residents and U.S. citizens need to stop. The objections to illegal immigration always derail over to specifically constraining legal immigration based on ethnicity, origins, and/or "skills". If you want to change legal immigration to your ideal, post in the legal immigration forum.
You still don't get the point? Yes, AFTER amnesty they become citizens. But it still doesn't erase the fact that they came here illegally in the first place! In no way should they be rewarded or profit off of jumping the line. It's bad enough that they themselves are rewarded by being allowed to stay. But ALSO being able to chain migrate all their relatives in is a whole different story.

One of the main reasons they couldn't immigrate legally is because they are uneducated and unskilled and will most likely need government subsidies to support themselves and their families. Their family members most likely wouldn't have qualified for a visa either. By illegally immigrating in the first place, then sending for their relatives, two whole groups of people who wouldn't otherwise be here are now here draining our coffers dry.

The fact that someone waves a magic wand and deams them now "legal," does not wipe away the fact that they circumvented our laws in the first place. Laws which exist in the first place to make sure that only those who can support themselves come here. Is that not a good criteria for legal immigration? Should we not also keep diversity in mind? You should be the last one to tell others in here not to ever spin off into a few comments about legal immigration. How many times have you done that? End of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2013, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,022,544 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
You still don't get the point? Yes, AFTER amnesty they become citizens. But it still doesn't erase the fact that they came here illegally in the first place! In no way should they be rewarded or profit off of jumping the line. It's bad enough that they themselves are rewarded by being allowed to stay. But ALSO being able to chain migrate all their relatives in is a whole different story...
So your solution is to constrain the abilities of U.S. citizens compared to other U.S. citizens? You've just given me an idea for a new poll thread. Why should that act of once being an illegal alien disallow their otherwise qualified relative from immigrating, especially after that sponsor has naturalized to U.S. citizenship?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
...One of the main reasons they couldn't immigrate legally is because they are uneducated and unskilled and will most likely need government subsidies to support themselves and their families. Their family members most likely wouldn't have qualified for a visa either. By illegally immigrating in the first place, then sending for their relatives, two whole groups of people who wouldn't otherwise be here are now here draining our coffers dry...
What criteria is currently in place to check the "skills" and education of family-sponsored legal immigrants? Again, your insinuations are resolving to ethnicity and countries of origin, not to how someone is immigrating. In reality, you are complaining about how someone becomes a Legal Resident, because they are completing the same path to U.S. citizenship as other naturalized Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
...The fact that someone waves a magic wand and deams them now "legal," does not wipe away the fact that they circumvented our laws in the first place. Laws which exist in the first place to make sure that only those who can support themselves come here. Is that not a good criteria for legal immigration? Should we not also keep diversity in mind? You should be the last one to tell others in here not to ever spin off into a few comments about legal immigration. How many times have you done that? End of story.
You've expressed a false criteria: Immigrants are never screened on the ability to support themselves. Work it out, explain to me why you think it is in place as you say.

The "diversity" statements to legal immigration are tired here. It has no aspect to illegal immigration, and it is a reference to limiting legal immigration by ethnicity (all such policies like that ended in 1965). You need to take that discussion over to the legal immigration forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 02:41 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,858,290 times
Reputation: 22174
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
So your solution is to constrain the abilities of U.S. citizens compared to other U.S. citizens? You've just given me an idea for a new poll thread. Why should that act of once being an illegal alien disallow their otherwise qualified relative from immigrating, especially after that sponsor has naturalized to U.S. citizenship?



What criteria is currently in place to check the "skills" and education of family-sponsored legal immigrants? Again, your insinuations are resolving to ethnicity and countries of origin, not to how someone is immigrating. In reality, you are complaining about how someone becomes a Legal Resident, because they are completing the same path to U.S. citizenship as other naturalized Americans.



You've expressed a false criteria: Immigrants are never screened on the ability to support themselves. Work it out, explain to me why you think it is in place as you say.

The "diversity" statements to legal immigration are tired here. It has no aspect to illegal immigration, and it is a reference to limiting legal immigration by ethnicity (all such policies like that ended in 1965). You need to take that discussion over to the legal immigration forum.
You're right and it should be changed because most family sponsors have no intention of actually paying the costs of their immigrants. It's up to the taxpayers to pay for their Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing and so on. Almost no family sponsors actually buy their "loved one" a good health insurance plan.

Family sponsorship should be limited to legal spouse and minor age children. No need to bring in all the parents, grandparents, siblings, fake siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins and so on. No need at all -- if you can't bear to live away from your family, then don't move away from them.

Employer sponsored immigrants are a much better type because the employer usually provides job benefits such as health insurance and legal wages so that the immigrant has some chance of staying off welfare handouts like Medicaid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 04:22 PM
 
66 posts, read 53,267 times
Reputation: 21
Legalizing illegal immigrants is a really bad idea
Legalizing illegal immigrants a bad idea | Center for Immigration Studies

Strain on social services. Legalizing millions of mostly poor people, many of whom have no job security or health insurance, will put a strain on already strapped social services agencies. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 57 percent of immigrant households (legal and illegal) used at least one welfare program in 2009. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most benefits, but once this group has legal status, they'll be eligible for the full range of benefits.

A surge of document and identity fraud. Amnesty applicants will have to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops to secure green cards, and those who don't qualify will scramble to create a paper trail to meet the requirements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 05:29 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,270,198 times
Reputation: 17979
Amnesty was tried i the 80's and didn't wrok. No reason to beleive it will if done agin and makig some priledged over others that are doing evryhting legally is just plain ole wrong.Its poltics in action not some idea of equal justice or rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,022,544 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Well -- where is your source that all the family sponsors are paying health insurance plans for others than spouse and minor children? Prove me wrong. Show us the data...
The burden of proof is on you, you've made the claim. I'm not going to follow you around to prove what you say is false. You've said it, certainly you can attempt to give a few leads on all three claims.

BTW, you didn't limit it down to "others than the spouse and minor children" before...

Here they are again:

"Most family sponsors have no intention of actually paying the costs of their immigrants."

"It's up to the taxpayers to pay for their Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing and so on."

"Almost no family sponsors actually buy their "loved one" a good health insurance plan."

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
...You realize that the financial obligation only means the sponsor's income will be added in with their immigrant's income which can be $0 for income testing for means tested government programs don't you?...
And you can source that too?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
...The sponsor bringing in siblings, parents, and so on are not required to buy them a health insurance plan, and they don't. There would certainly be a whole lot less family sponsored chain migration if the sponsor really had to provide all their immigrants' needs...
You're still on aspects of legal immigration?...

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
...As for your last suggestion, there is no longer a difference between legal and illegal immigration. In fact with Obama's plan, illegals will be given US citizenship for themselves and children way ahead of those who are coming here legally or who abide by the terms of their visas.
My "last suggestion" was for you to take this to the Legal Immigration section, but I will agree that there is no difference between illegal and illegal immigration to you...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 06:51 PM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,858,290 times
Reputation: 22174
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
The burden of proof is on you, you've made the claim. I'm not going to follow you around to prove what you say is false. You've said it, certainly you can attempt to give a few leads on all three claims.

BTW, you didn't limit it down to "others than the spouse and minor children" before...

Here they are again:

"Most family sponsors have no intention of actually paying the costs of their immigrants."

"It's up to the taxpayers to pay for their Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8 housing and so on."

"Almost no family sponsors actually buy their "loved one" a good health insurance plan."



And you can source that too?...



You're still on aspects of legal immigration?...



My "last suggestion" was for you to take this to the Legal Immigration section, but I will agree that there is no difference between illegal and illegal immigration to you...
You should do your own research you know -- but here it is --- notice -- when the sponsored immigrant goes to get welfare handouts, the sponsor's income is only added to his immigrant's -- the sponsor might be on welfare himself and the immigrant's income $0 which will get the immigrant on welfare handouts.

There is no requirement that the sponsor actually provide his immigrants with a health insurance plan or that the sponsor be held responsible for all medical bills for their immigrants. This is why I believe legally sponsored through family immigrants be limited to spouse and minor children but if and only if the sponsor will pay for all their costs and provide them a good health insurance plan.

Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs - National Immigration Law Center

When an agency is determining a lawful permanent residentís financial eligibility for TANF, food stamps, SSI, nonemergency Medicaid, or CHIP,[33] in some cases the law requires the agency to deem the income of the immigrantís sponsor or the sponsorís spouse as available to the immigrant. The sponsorís income and resources are added to the immigrantís, which often disqualifies the immigrant as over-income for the program. The 1996 laws imposed deeming rules until the immigrant becomes a citizen or secures credit for 40 quarters (approximately 10 years) of work history in the U.S.[34]

Domestic violence survivors and immigrants who would go hungry or homeless without assistance (ďindigentĒ immigrants) are exempt from sponsor deeming for at least 12 months.[35] Some programs apply additional exemptions from the sponsor deeming rules.[36}
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