U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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 05-11-2009, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,249,807 times
Reputation: 2520

Advertisements

If the government made legal immigration a quicker and easier process it would undoubtedly decrease the amount of illegal immigration/undocumented immigrants. I have gone through the process and it is absolutely brutal, it took us nearly a year to get a visa. I have other acquaintances who have been rejected for visas, mostly because it was determined that the applicant was unable to prove that he/she had enough going for them in their country of origin (AKA - the applicant wasn't wealthy enough). Just because someone doesn't own a lucrative business, have a huge bank account and/or doesn't own a significant amount of land doesn't mean they are planning to outstay their visa limit. My wife's family will never be able to visit us here legally because they don't meet the financial/land owning requirements to be able to obtain a visitor's visa, meanwhile we can go back and forth as we please...this is absolulte bull**** if you ask me.

My solution is to:
A. decrease processing times for visa applications
B. eliminate land/wealth requirements for temporary visas

If undocumented people are going to be here anyway, I say document them and tax them...problem solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-11-2009, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Where laws can be ignored due to political correctness
1,111 posts, read 1,582,143 times
Reputation: 267
Well, thanks for joining our country. Just out of curiosity, where were originally from?

As for your suggestion, I agree that the amount of bureaucracy should be reduced but that still doesn't justify overstaying one's visa when there are plenty of people who can be contacted for assistance on such issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,249,807 times
Reputation: 2520
Quote:
Originally Posted by antireconquista View Post
Well, thanks for joining our country. Just out of curiosity, where were originally from?

As for your suggestion, I agree that the amount of bureaucracy should be reduced but that still doesn't justify overstaying one's visa when there are plenty of people who can be contacted for assistance on such issues.
I'm American born and raised and married to a Mexican woman. I wasn't justifying anyone overstaying their visa. I'm saying that government officials make a judgement of whether or not to award an applicant a visitor's visa based at least partially on the size of the individual's bank account and how much land they own. The reason they do this is because it helps them decide if they think the applicant is at risk of working in the country (visitor's visas don't give you permission to work in the country) or overstay the length permitted by the visa.

From people I know with visitor's visas that isn't the case at all. If anything they are paranoid about breaking any of the rules because it could prevent them from being allowed to return to the country in the future.

My thoughts have kind of seperated into my own small examples and the big picture. From a micro perspective, I'd like my wife's parents to be able to come visit our home in the United States before they are too old and sick to travel. As the laws currently are it is literally impossible for this to happen from a legal standpoint. From a macro perspective, I feel that a large portion of illegal immigration occurs because our system of getting permission to legally enter the country is far too long, difficult and expensive for most people to deal with, so they come the easier, illegal way. I have accepted that people are going to be coming here as long as there are jobs (based on supply and demand) and they will do it whether legal or not. Why not document and tax these people in the same manner as everybody else. I'm sure a large number of these people would even be willing to pay a higher tax rate than citizens if it means they can stay here legally.

Last edited by Cruz Azul Guy; 05-11-2009 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,048 times
Reputation: 135
Wouldn't an even simpler way to skirt illegal immigration be to secure the borders, enforce current immigration laws, and make it HARDER to come here illegally and opposed to legally?
Your example brings to mind raising the number of high school graduates by letting people graduate after the tenth grade or lowering a passing grade to 60% correct.
Why would a welfare state,the US, want to bring people of low/limited financial capacity and limited skills to our country? 33% of legal immigrants are already using a major welfare system, are you suggesting that we lower our standard even more as to raise that number even higher? Why would anyone want that? What do native tax payers stand to gain from lower immigration standards?

The US and its laws are not here for the leisurely use of foreigners. I'm sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 02:45 PM
 
Location: The Wine Country, CA
807 posts, read 1,116,578 times
Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
Wouldn't an even simpler way to skirt illegal immigration be to secure the borders, enforce current immigration laws, and make it HARDER to come here illegally and opposed to legally?
Your example brings to mind raising the number of high school graduates by letting people graduate after the tenth grade or lowering a passing grade to 60% correct.
Why would a welfare state,the US, want to bring people of low/limited financial capacity and limited skills to our country? 33% of legal immigrants are already using a major welfare system, are you suggesting that we lower our standard even more as to raise that number even higher? Why would anyone want that? What do native tax payers stand to gain from lower immigration standards?

The US and its laws are not here for the leisurely use of foreigners. I'm sorry.

Wow!!! Awesome Post!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,249,807 times
Reputation: 2520
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
Wouldn't an even simpler way to skirt illegal immigration be to secure the borders, enforce current immigration laws, and make it HARDER to come here illegally and opposed to legally?
Sorry but no matter how much protection we put on our borders people are going to find a way in if they want to. I feel there are better ways of spending tax money. In my opinion we waste far too much money on initiatives like this that are destined for failure (protecting the border, war on drugs, patriot act, etc.) It is massive wasted spending if you ask me.

Quote:
Your example brings to mind raising the number of high school graduates by letting people graduate after the tenth grade or lowering a passing grade to 60% correct.
Exceptionally bright students are allowed to graduate after the tenth grade and in some cases even earlier. If a student is very gifted and there is nothing left for he/she to learn in high school there is no reason to keep him/her there. I have no problem with that. Last time I checked, 60% was a D- which technically is a passing grade in high school.

Quote:
Why would a welfare state,the US, want to bring people of low/limited financial capacity and limited skills to our country?
Why should they discriminate against these people? My wife didn't meet those requirements because she was fresh out of college and came from a modest household, so of course she isn't going meet any kind of land/resources requirement. It still doesn't mean she should be treated differently than a 45 year old man with a ranch or a girl from a wealthy family. If she has a clean record and meets all the other requirements I don't feel the government should reject her simply because of that.

Quote:
33% of legal immigrants are already using a major welfare system, are you suggesting that we lower our standard even more as to raise that number even higher?
I don't know where you are getting this data but I do know that a significant number of legal immigrants are refugees (almost 2.4 million between 1980 and 2006) and a huge percentage of these people receive aid, some groups have unemployment numbers upwards of 80%. I'm not addressing refugees as that is a whole different topic and they are undoubtedly contributing heavily to this number.

Quote:
Why would anyone want that? What do native tax payers stand to gain from lower immigration standards?
I know alot of people who agree with me. Native tax payers will stand to have less of a tax burden since these people who would already be here regardless are now documented and paying more in for taxes. Meanwhile, people like my wife's parents can come visit and spend money here as tourists which goes right into the economic machine. More people here means more spending which means more economic stimulation and more jobs. Shocking, I know.

Quote:
The US and its laws are not here for the leisurely use of foreigners. I'm sorry.
Neither are the laws of any other country yet we go to those countries as tourists by the planeloads and without needing a visa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slig View Post
I'm American born and raised and married to a Mexican woman. I wasn't justifying anyone overstaying their visa. I'm saying that government officials make a judgement of whether or not to award an applicant a visitor's visa based at least partially on the size of the individual's bank account and how much land they own. The reason they do this is because it helps them decide if they think the applicant is at risk of working in the country (visitor's visas don't give you permission to work in the country) or overstay the length permitted by the visa.

From people I know with visitor's visas that isn't the case at all. If anything they are paranoid about breaking any of the rules because it could prevent them from being allowed to return to the country in the future.

My thoughts have kind of seperated into my own small examples and the big picture. From a micro perspective, I'd like my wife's parents to be able to come visit our home in the United States before they are too old and sick to travel. As the laws currently are it is literally impossible for this to happen from a legal standpoint. From a macro perspective, I feel that a large portion of illegal immigration occurs because our system of getting permission to legally enter the country is far too long, difficult and expensive for most people to deal with, so they come the easier, illegal way. I have accepted that people are going to be coming here as long as there are jobs (based on supply and demand) and they will do it whether legal or not. Why not document and tax these people in the same manner as everybody else. I'm sure a large number of these people would even be willing to pay a higher tax rate than citizens if it means they can stay here legally.
I have to disagree with you on this. I am married to a Thai national. Since we were married we have had 2 sisters come to visit. 1 nephew, 2 nieces, Her adult daughter , and 2 personal friends of my wife. I would say that it is not impossible. A pain in the butt to be sure but not at all impossible. I sponsored all of them.
Yes how much one has in the bank should matter. If you are going to sponsor someone you better be able to afford them and take responsibility for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,881,481 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slig View Post
Sorry but no matter how much protection we put on our borders people are going to find a way in if they want to. I feel there are better ways of spending tax money. In my opinion we waste far too much money on initiatives like this that are destined for failure (protecting the border, war on drugs, patriot act, etc.) It is massive wasted spending if you ask me.



Exceptionally bright students are allowed to graduate after the tenth grade and in some cases even earlier. If a student is very gifted and there is nothing left for he/she to learn in high school there is no reason to keep him/her there. I have no problem with that. Last time I checked, 60% was a D- which technically is a passing grade in high school.



Why should they discriminate against these people? My wife didn't meet those requirements because she was fresh out of college and came from a modest household, so of course she isn't going meet any kind of land/resources requirement. It still doesn't mean she should be treated differently than a 45 year old man with a ranch or a girl from a wealthy family. If she has a clean record and meets all the other requirements I don't feel the government should reject her simply because of that.



I don't know where you are getting this data but I do know that a significant number of legal immigrants are refugees (almost 2.4 million between 1980 and 2006) and a huge percentage of these people receive aid, some groups have unemployment numbers upwards of 80%. I'm not addressing refugees as that is a whole different topic and they are undoubtedly contributing heavily to this number.



I know alot of people who agree with me. Native tax payers will stand to have less of a tax burden since these people who would already be here regardless are now documented and paying more in for taxes. Meanwhile, people like my wife's parents can come visit and spend money here as tourists which goes right into the economic machine. More people here means more spending which means more economic stimulation and more jobs. Shocking, I know.



Neither are the laws of any other country yet we go to those countries as tourists by the planeloads and without needing a visa.
Once again I must disagree with you.
Securing our border would reduce the volume of illegals to a small percentage of todays numbers. The fence we have building has already had an impact.
Your thoughts about allowing a D- as acceptable. Well there is an old saying in leadership. You can set expectations as high as you want but if your level of accountability is low thats the best you will actually get. Given the poor performance of our students these days that point has been proven.
Why should we discriminate against poor people? In fact we are not. We have a right to establish a minimim standard. In the case of a marriage or spousal VISA the point is moot because its based on your income not theirs. In the case of other VISA's it is a valid point. Other countries have some pretty high standards especially as far as income is concerned. I agree with them. We should not be asked to accept the burden of an immigrant who can not support themselves.
The reason we don't require a VISA in most countries is due to the fact that most americans if they can afford to travel are not an immigration risk. In short we have a good job, own property, and have a reason to leave on time. Its that simple. The same countries that allow Americans to come and go are not so generous towards people from 3rd world countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,249,807 times
Reputation: 2520
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01 View Post
I have to disagree with you on this. I am married to a Thai national. Since we were married we have had 2 sisters come to visit. 1 nephew, 2 nieces, Her adult daughter , and 2 personal friends of my wife. I would say that it is not impossible. A pain in the butt to be sure but not at all impossible. I sponsored all of them.
Yes how much one has in the bank should matter. If you are going to sponsor someone you better be able to afford them and take responsibility for them.
Tinman, that is encouraging news. I hope I have the same luck as you have. If you can prove to me that Thai nationals are treated the same as Mexican nationals in regards to a visitor's visa application then you might just sway me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, MN
5,891 posts, read 12,249,807 times
Reputation: 2520
[quote=tinman01;8760101]
Quote:
The same countries that allow Americans to come and go are not so generous towards people from 3rd world countries.
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. As far as I'm concerned, people shouldn't be judged based upon their country of origin, as long as they are lawful and not creating a burden. In the age of globalization borders should mean very little. This is already becoming the case in the European Union.
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