The D.R.E.A.M. Act is dead.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Look, at the end of the day, it would nice to let in any and everyone who wanted to come to the US. However, that is neither realistic nor practical. As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with 'race' -- I don't think that being 'hard-working' or 'looking for a better life' should be an excuse for breaking the law, no matter what race you are. There are plenty of hard-working people in Bangkok and Calcutta who would give their right arm to be in the US -- should they be given a free-pass as well?

We could do a better job of letting more people in. We really could.

I always find these discussions interesting because it starts with the subject of people being illegal and then turns to reasons we just don't want or need any more foreigners.

IMO, US immigration policy is unnecessarily complicated and restrictive. I know you feel that way sachinky because I've heard you say it before. I believe anyone who is willing to go through what you went through to come here - background check including clean criminal record; medical exam; interview - I believe these people should be granted a visa. Then they would be legal. I don't think you can lobby for US immigration policy to be "relaxed" unless you apply it to everyone, not just the family of US citizens.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What in the world are Indian people doing in West Virginia????

Well, oen of the family members (usually the husband) is here on a work visa for one of the major manufacturing companies located in this valley. There's also Ohio University just across the border.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

We could do a better job of letting more people in. We really could.

I always find these discussions interesting because it starts with the subject of people being illegal and then turns to reasons we just don't want or need any more foreigners.

IMO, US immigration policy is unnecessarily complicated and restrictive. I know you feel that way sachinky because I've heard you say it before. I believe anyone who is willing to go through what you went through to come here - background check including clean criminal record; medical exam; interview - I believe these people should be granted a visa. Then they would be legal. I don't think you can lobby for US immigration policy to be "relaxed" unless you apply it to everyone, not just the family of US citizens.

Unnecessarily complicated and restrictive? I dunno. I don't think the complexity or restrictiveness of the immigration process is having much effect on slowing it down, do you? Maybe there's a reason for the complexity of the process.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Unnecessarily complicated and restrictive? I dunno. I don't think the complexity or restrictiveness of the immigration process is having much effect on slowing it down, do you? Maybe there's a reason for the complexity of the process.

Sure, it's numbers. Sheer numbers. That's the main reason it takes such a long time to get a petition processed and visa issued for the US.

The only international "analogy" I personally have for comparison is immigration to the UK. I've studied it because we might return there some day. At the moment, the British process and the US are actually quite similar, save for the lack of a police report and medical exam for the immigrant. Visas are issued much more quickly than in the US mostly because of numbers. Their process is changing in June 2011 and there will be no British equivalent of a US permanent resident. If you move to the UK after June 2011, you will have to take the path to British residency if you wish to remain long term in the country.

I used the term "restrictive" because of US quotas and other restrictions against those foreign born who don't happen to be married to US citizens.

[natty bumppo 297]

Unnecessarily complicated and restrictive? I dunno. I don't think the complexity or restrictiveness of the immigration process is having much effect on slowing it down, do you? Maybe there's a reason for the complexity of the process.

could be RJ missed the point of your post ....

[sjr09 155]

Up Date on The Dream Act　

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40868857/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

This story, " Political Battle on Illegal Immigration Shifts to States," originally appeared in The New York Times.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Sure, it's numbers. Sheer numbers. That's the main reason it takes such a long time to get a petition processed and visa issued for the US.

The only international "analogy" I personally have for comparison is immigration to the UK. I've studied it because we might return there some day. At the moment, the British process and the US are actually quite similar, save for the lack of a police report and medical exam for the immigrant. Visas are issued much more quickly than in the US mostly because of numbers. Their process is changing in June 2011 and there will be no British equivalent of a US permanent resident. If you move to the UK after June 2011, you will have to take the path to British residency if you wish to remain long term in the country.

I used the term "restrictive" because of US quotas and other restrictions against those foreign born who don't happen to be married to US citizens.

It's a lot more than just numbers. If it were only numbers then that would mean the entire reason for it being "complicated and restrictive" is because of the bureaucracy, and everyone would eventually get approved for a visa. That's not what happens. You can get an appointment for a visitor's visa interview at most consulates in less than a few weeks. At many consulates you can even submit the visa application online. That's not particularly complicated. Outside of the relatively small number of countries that are on an economic par with the US, the odds of that visitor's visa being approved are low. In many countries, the odds are close to zero. Note that there are no quotas for visitor's visas.

The reason so many are denied is because of the risk they will not leave when they're supposed to. The chart I posted shows the US takes in more immigrants than any other nation - by a wide margin. This isn't because the US is magnanimous in their sympathy for the plight of the world's downtrodden masses. It's because the US has one of the highest standards of living in the world. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly 700 million people worldwide wanted to immigrate. Of those, 24% said they wanted to immigrate to the US. That's about 165 million people worldwide, or roughly half the current population of the US.

The pattern of immigration to the US can be seen through it's history. Immigration peaked at the turn of the 20th century when the industrial revolution created vast numbers of new jobs, and the US was an immigrant magnet. When the number of immigrants outweighed the number of available jobs Congress passed acts to limit immigration, in 1921 and again in 1924. During the Great Depression the magnet was shut off. In the early 1930's more people left the US than immigrated here. The trend reversed itself again after WWII. History has taught us an important lesson - when you have more people who want to work than you have jobs, you're going to have poverty.

If the US dropped the quota system, and threw open the doors to any immigrant who wanted to come here, our population would grow quickly to about 475 million, and unemployment would jump to about 41%. That's a helluva lot of poverty!

The US can't afford to allow an influx of immigrants who either won't contribute to the economic health of the country, or will put an American out of work. The vast majority of those 165 million would-be immigrants would never qualify for a work related immigrant visa. Their only hope is through family based immigration, where there are no quotas and no requirements beyond a qualifying relationship with a US citizen or LPR. The incentive for fraud is huge, and the amount of actual fraud is equally huge.

The process is complicated and restrictive because it needs to be. When it's no longer complicated and restrictive then that will be the time that nobody wants to live in the US anymore. Perhaps China or India will be the new immigrant magnets of the world, and you can bet they'll have a complicated and restrictive immigration process.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It's a lot more than just numbers. If it were only numbers then that would mean the entire reason for it being "complicated and restrictive" is because of the bureaucracy, and everyone would eventually get approved for a visa. That's not what happens. You can get an appointment for a visitor's visa interview at most consulates in less than a few weeks. At many consulates you can even submit the visa application online. That's not particularly complicated. Outside of the relatively small number of countries that are on an economic par with the US, the odds of that visitor's visa being approved are low. In many countries, the odds are close to zero. Note that there are no quotas for visitor's visas.

The reason so many are denied is because of the risk they will not leave when they're supposed to. The chart I posted shows the US takes in more immigrants than any other nation - by a wide margin. This isn't because the US is magnanimous in their sympathy for the plight of the world's downtrodden masses. It's because the US has one of the highest standards of living in the world. A recent Gallup poll found that nearly 700 million people worldwide wanted to immigrate. Of those, 24% said they wanted to immigrate to the US. That's about 165 million people worldwide, or roughly half the current population of the US.

The pattern of immigration to the US can be seen through it's history. Immigration peaked at the turn of the 20th century when the industrial revolution created vast numbers of new jobs, and the US was an immigrant magnet. When the number of immigrants outweighed the number of available jobs Congress passed acts to limit immigration, in 1921 and again in 1924. During the Great Depression the magnet was shut off. In the early 1930's more people left the US than immigrated here. The trend reversed itself again after WWII. History has taught us an important lesson - when you have more people who want to work than you have jobs, you're going to have poverty.

If the US dropped the quota system, and threw open the doors to any immigrant who wanted to come here, our population would grow quickly to about 475 million, and unemployment would jump to about 41%. That's a helluva lot of poverty!

The US can't afford to allow an influx of immigrants who either won't contribute to the economic health of the country, or will put an American out of work. The vast majority of those 165 million would-be immigrants would never qualify for a work related immigrant visa. Their only hope is through family based immigration, where there are no quotas and no requirements beyond a qualifying relationship with a US citizen or LPR. The incentive for fraud is huge, and the amount of actual fraud is equally huge.

The process is complicated and restrictive because it needs to be. When it's no longer complicated and restrictive then that will be the time that nobody wants to live in the US anymore. Perhaps China or India will be the new immigrant magnets of the world, and you can bet they'll have a complicated and restrictive immigration process.

Good post. Way beyond the comprehension of some who will disagree with you anyway.

FYI for what it is worth, Russia makes the number 2 position not because they are such a wonderful and robust economy in themselves, but because they are surrounded by horribly destitute former republics from which, so far, they have a lenient policy of immigration...provided they don't want to live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. Ukraine makes the top 10 for the same reason. Ukraine looks pretty good to someone from Moldova, Uzbekistan, Armenia, etc. and they can just basically relocate there without many hassels.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Up Date on The Dream Act　

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40868857/ns/politics-the_new_york_times

This story, " Political Battle on Illegal Immigration Shifts to States," originally appeared in The New York Times.

Good post. Actually the power to determine citizenship DOES, in effect, lie with the states. The states CAN implement the adoption of a constitutional amendment if enough of them get together. Constitutional amendments can originate in the states.

I would like to see ONE state, just ONE, implement a heavy and business ruining TAX on anyone that abuses illegal immigrants by hiring them to avoid federal and state laws to protect workers in order to increase profits.

Arizona has tried something similar but with flaws. They propose to take away a business license if people abuse illegals by hiring them to avoid worler protections and wage laws. The problem with this is that it amounts to taking away "property" which requires "due process". Taxes on the other hand, do not require "due process". Go figure. Taking away a business license because someone hates brown people and hires them at less than minimum wage and does not pay payroill taxes for their benefit can be considered unconstitutional. Taxing them for providing a market for human traffickers, exploiting humans for profit is perfectly legal.

Taxes are an effective way to modify behavior. We see it used to stimulate buying homes, cars, refrigerators, window caulking, etc., etc. Seems the government has a complete and thorough grasp on how to use taxes to influence our behavior. Yet when it comes to these people who viciously abuse brown people to increase thier profit and avoid the laws WE pass to protect workers...the government has a brain fart and can't remember how to implement taxes!

If one feels that this is too punitive to people that abuse their fellow man, then try it in reverse! Grant a TAX CREDIT, a HUGE tax credit to all employers that can demonstrate ALL their employees are US citizens or Legal Residents (or otherwise authorized to work) Seems like burdening people for doing what is right to me though. Better to punish people who support and provide a market for what are basically slaves.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

What in the world are Indian people doing in West Virginia????

musta taken the wrong exit on the jersey turnpike.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Jim - Thank you for putting up that chart! The site it comes from is most interesting!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Republicans block youth (illegal) immigration bill

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans have blocked a bill to grant hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children a chance to gain legal status if they enroll in college or join the military.

Sponsors of what they call the Dream Act needed 60 Senate votes for it, but fell five short. The House passed the bill last week. It was a last-ditch effort to enact it before it Republicans take control of the House from Democrats in January.

Immigrant advocates viewed the measure as a step toward providing a path to legal status for up to 12 million illegal immigrants by focusing on the most sympathetic among them first. Critics called it a back-door grant of amnesty that would encourage more illegal immigration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_on_go_co/us_immigration_students

Of concern is that 55 out of the (99?) Senators incumbent as of 2010/12/18 voted in favour of an amnesty three magnitude-orders worse than the one of 1986 (from which I suffered two years of delayed aftereffects, and of which large numbers of potential LEGAL immigrants continue to suffer aftereffects). I consider failure of atrocious DREAM Act a pyrrhic victory--the vote itself says that at least 55 Senators are horrendously out-of-touch with their constituents! Edited January 1, 2011 by Saddle Bronc

[tmma 467]

.....I believe anyone who is willing to go through what you went through to come here - background check including clean criminal record; medical exam; interview - I believe these people should be granted a visa. Then they would be legal. .......

'People who come here and are willing to and go through the background check/medical/interview/criminal check' are usually granted a visa...provided their info checks out and they are eligible.. Some of the visas not family based...student/work/lottery etc.

Personally i think people that want to immigrate here should...provided they go through all that ^^^ and do it LEGALLY.

[tmma 467]

Sure, it's numbers. Sheer numbers. That's the main reason it takes such a long time to get a petition processed and visa issued for the US.

The only international "analogy" I personally have for comparison is immigration to the UK. I've studied it because we might return there some day. At the moment, the British process and the US are actually quite similar, save for the lack of a police report and medical exam for the immigrant. Visas are issued much more quickly than in the US mostly because of numbers. Their process is changing in June 2011 and there will be no British equivalent of a US permanent resident. If you move to the UK after June 2011, you will have to take the path to British residency if you wish to remain long term in the country.

I used the term "restrictive" because of US quotas and other restrictions against those foreign born who don't happen to be married to US citizens.

Won't you be entering the UK on a marriage to EU citizen visa? I know the UK immigration system and unless it's a marraige/family based/study/investment or EU citizenship visa-it's tough to get.

( I was in the UK for 21 years on ' leave to enter and stay indefinatly' it was NOT easy or uncomplicated to aquire.)

Edited January 1, 2011 by tmma

[Dan and Judy 614]

What in the world are Indian people doing in West Virginia????

Yea! I thought we wiped out the indians before we moved in. I knew those reservations were a bad idea. Now they're trying to sneak back into West Virgina.