Pulitzer-prize winner Vargas says he's an illegal immigrant

[brklny 2]

Well at least your wife got here, she had a legal option to do that. (though don't get me started on this, I think LEGAL immigration should be looked at as well, this whole thing of separating couples for years (in some cases)is just crazy, but that's another topic).

My point about this person is that he didn't put himself in this mess, and once he knew that he is in it he had no LEGAL avenues to take to fix this, wheater it takes a year or more. He thought that the only thing to do is to try and do good, work hard, contribute to the US and makes himself valuable member of this sociaty. And this is what he did, he worked hard to "earn" his citizenship to earn the right to be allowed to stay here.

[Karee 4,190]

Well at least your wife got here, she had a legal option to do that. (though don't get me started on this, I think LEGAL immigration should be looked at as well, this whole thing of separating couples for years (in some cases)is just crazy, but that's another topic).

My point about this person is that he didn't put himself in this mess, and once he knew that he is in it he had no LEGAL avenues to take to fix this, wheater it takes a year or more. He thought that the only thing to do is to try and do good, work hard, contribute to the US and makes himself valuable member of this sociaty. And this is what he did, he worked hard to "earn" his citizenship to earn the right to be allowed to stay here.

Yeah so be it. But the "year" thing I mention is most likely due to ####### like this. It takes 30 days in the EU. I have an issue with people spending money and resources to keep people here that are her illegally versus getting someone here who did the right thing.

I don't usually comment around here for good reasons. It's all Amby versus everyone. Paul and Big dog going at it etc.etc. But this is plain BS. I don't care what his parents did. He IS HERE ILLEGALLY. Bottom line.

He has to go, or more will come.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Yeah so be it. But the "year" thing I mention is most likely due to ####### like this. It takes 30 days in the EU. I have an issue with people spending money and resources to keep people here that are her illegally versus getting someone here who did the right thing.

I don't usually comment around here for good reasons. It's all Amby versus everyone. Paul and Big dog going at it etc.etc. But this is plain BS. I don't care what his parents did. He IS HERE ILLEGALLY. Bottom line.

He has to go, or more will come.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

he worked hard to "earn" his citizenship to earn the right to be allowed to stay here.

So we should overlook all of the crimes he committed? Those crimes "earned" him a few things too like possible felony convictions and a lifetime inadmissibility that can't be waived for false claim to US Citizenship. He made these choices as an adult and knew he was breaking the law.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

So how did you work and pay taxes, considering you were illegal here for what, like almost 20 years?

I got a (real) Florida driver's license in 1986 with a B1/B2 and thus was able to get a (real) California driver license in 1991 and a (real) SSN at the same time. In the early (= way before 9/11) days that was still possible.

I came with money to the US and was a business owner right from the start so I never filled out an I-9 form in my life. I paid income taxes with my (real) SSN as it is required from every resident. Understand that a resident for tax purposes is everyone who resides more than 180 days in any calendar year in the United States. That applies to legal residents, illegal residents, hookers and drug dealers alike. I played by all the rules except that I was unlawfully present for many years. Had I been caught, they would have me deported (I actually would have applied for VD) but I would not have blamed the bad US immigration system for it.

You play, you win . . . cool. You play, you lose, you accept the consequences of your actions. That's my mantra. The fact that I do not hide my past and my timeline should tell you that I am not afraid to face criticism where criticism is due. I was young and pretty naive back then, but somehow got lucky in the end.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Just Bob

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I got a (real) Florida driver's license in 1986 with a B1/B2 and thus was able to get a (real) California driver license in 1991 and a (real) SSN at the same time. In the early (= way before 9/11) days that was still possible.

I came with money to the US and was a business owner right from the start so I never filled out an I-9 form in my life. I paid income taxes with my (real) SSN as it is required from every resident. Understand that a resident for tax purposes is everyone who resides more than 180 days in any calendar year in the United States. That applies to legal residents, illegal residents, hookers and drug dealers alike. I played by all the rules except that I was unlawfully present for many years. Had I been caught, they would have me deported (I actually would have applied for VD) but I would not have blamed the bad US immigration system for it.

You play, you win . . . cool. You play, you lose, you accept the consequences of your actions. That's my mantra. The fact that I do not hide my past and my timeline should tell you that I am not afraid to face criticism where criticism is due. I was young and pretty naive back then, but somehow got lucky in the end.

I think you should have been deported...nothing personal about you, but you did effectively hang out in the US illegally for 20 years?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Sousuke

[kristen_maroc 126]

Okay, so to all of you who are against immigration reform...

My question is why?

Is it:

- Economic? You (or a school or economic thought/scholars/whatever) say it will hurt our economy to have more immigrants?

- Cultural? You don't want to impact American culture by having people from different places come to the US?

- National Security? You think people coming over might be plotting against the US?

- Other?

I get that Vargas broke the law and people don't think he should have an exception. To me, that makes sense. But being against things like amnesty programs and easier ways or less barriers to legal immigration... I don't understand it.

I'm genuinely curious here!

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I think you should have been deported...nothing personal about you, but you did effectively hang out in the US illegally for 20 years?

No offense taken.

It was more like 13 years, but, yes, I agree with you and had I gotten in trouble with the law they surely would have deported me.

I'm fully aware of that, hence my previous post.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

I catch that ball and run with it.

I have no problems with a version of the DREAM Act right now that takes into consideration children who have been brought to this country at a very young age (pre-school) and have not gotten in trouble with the law, if the cut-off age is 19 years, not 35.

I also have no problems with one final amnesty that provides people a path to a Green Card if:

- they have been in the US for at least 10 years,

- have never been in trouble with the law,

- have paid income taxes for at least the past 5 years, and

- show their desire to integrate, which includes proficiency in the English language,

after we have made sure that our borders are secure,

after we made e-verify mandatory,

after we put employers who employ illegals in prison and fine them severely,

after we have made unlawful entrance and unlawful presence a felony, and

after we have deported the majority of those who would not be eligible for such amnesty.

In plain English: make the Mexican/US border nearly darn impenetrable (put me in charge and I'll show you how), change the law, and start deporting, deporting, deporting. Once you have deported at least 3 million illegals, bring data to revisit the issue. Then we talk about what to do with those who are still here, working hard to feed their families, while paying taxes and staying out of trouble.

Okay, so to all of you who are against immigration reform...

My question is why?

Is it:

- Economic? You (or a school or economic thought/scholars/whatever) say it will hurt our economy to have more immigrants?

- Cultural? You don't want to impact American culture by having people from different places come to the US?

- National Security? You think people coming over might be plotting against the US?

- Other?

I get that Vargas broke the law and people don't think he should have an exception. To me, that makes sense. But being against things like amnesty programs and easier ways or less barriers to legal immigration... I don't understand it.

I'm genuinely curious here!

[kristen_maroc 126]

I catch that ball and run with it.

I have no problems with a version of the DREAM Act right now that takes into consideration children who have been brought to this country at a very young age (pre-school) and have not gotten in trouble with the law, if the cut-off age is 19 years, not 35.

I also have no problems with one final amnesty that provides people a path to a Green Card if:

- they have been in the US for at least 10 years,

- have never been in trouble with the law,

- have paid income taxes for at least the past 5 years, and

- show their desire to integrate, which includes proficiency in the English language,

after we have made sure that our borders are secure,

after we made e-verify mandatory,

after we put employers who employ illegals in prison and fine them severely,

after we have made unlawful entrance and unlawful presence a felony, and

after we have deported the majority of those who would not be eligible for such amnesty.

In plain English: make the Mexican/US border nearly darn impenetrable (put me in charge and I'll show you how), change the law, and start deporting, deporting, deporting. Once you have deported at least 3 million illegals, bring data to revisit the issue. Then we talk about what to do with those who are still here, working hard to feed their families, while paying taxes and staying out of trouble.

Thank you for this respectful response. :-)

So, let's say that all happens. Would you still make it easier for people to come in, pass a background check, and have an easier time to become a legal, documented immigrant?

And would you still deport children who have grown up and spent their formative years in the US and don't know any other home?

[jundp 191]

You play, you win . . . cool. You play, you lose, you accept the consequences of your actions. That's my mantra. The fact that I do not hide my past and my timeline should tell you that I am not afraid to face criticism where criticism is due. I was young and pretty naive back then, but somehow got lucky in the end.

But does it matter to you that Vargas admitted fault? He didn't wait to get "caught" and he'd been lucky for many years previously, just as you were. He was 12 when he came here, 16 when he found out his illegal status. How old were you when you knew your residency in the US was illegal? I'm not trying to offend, but I am asking what you think is the difference between you and Vargas as to responsibility? Is it because you entered the US legally and he didn't?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

But does it matter to you that Vargas admitted fault? He didn't wait to get "caught" and he'd been lucky for many years previously, just as you were.

No,

he came forward when he (1) he couldn't get a new fake Green Card anymore, (2) realized that Gay Marriage would not be signed off by the President, and (3) when he learned that people who would be eligible under the DREAM Act would not be deported any longer. He seized the opportunity to make money, nothing else.

I'm not trying to offend, but I am asking what you think is the difference between you and Vargas as to responsibility? Is it because you entered the US legally and he didn't?

No,

it's because I did not commit document a felony while being here. I did not buy and use fake Green Cards, did not use a fake SSN card, did not seek employment with fake documents, did not claim to be a US citizen. That's why.

[Zero Sum 305]

I catch that ball and run with it.

I have no problems with a version of the DREAM Act right now that takes into consideration children who have been brought to this country at a very young age (pre-school) and have not gotten in trouble with the law, if the cut-off age is 19 years, not 35.

I also have no problems with one final amnesty that provides people a path to a Green Card if:

- they have been in the US for at least 10 years,

- have never been in trouble with the law,

- have paid income taxes for at least the past 5 years, and

- show their desire to integrate, which includes proficiency in the English language,

after we have made sure that our borders are secure,

after we made e-verify mandatory,

after we put employers who employ illegals in prison and fine them severely,

after we have made unlawful entrance and unlawful presence a felony, and

after we have deported the majority of those who would not be eligible for such amnesty.

In plain English: make the Mexican/US border nearly darn impenetrable (put me in charge and I'll show you how), change the law, and start deporting, deporting, deporting. Once you have deported at least 3 million illegals, bring data to revisit the issue. Then we talk about what to do with those who are still here, working hard to feed their families, while paying taxes and staying out of trouble.

Interesting breakdown, thanks. Not all opponents of DREAM can specify their predictable anger at immigration policy beyond rants about crime and punishment that don't take much into consideration in reality and rationality. I believe the age limit can be kept at 35, but the service requirement for eligible individuals must be very clearly specified- not just generally defined within the confines of education as an option.

Your last statement would be pretty much unnecessary with a mandatory e-verify/employer penalty that makes the risk of hiring an illegal not worth the price; the current economy has shown that bad times here directly increase self-deportations. Such conditions would obviously lead to many many self-deportations as 'the buck hath stopped' without the need to spend much money in forceful removals.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Okay, so to all of you who are against immigration reform...

My question is why?

I have no problem with immigration reform, I just don't believe rewarding those who have already scoffed at US Laws (including Immigration Laws) should be called "Reform".

If the DREAM Act had a reasonable age limit (21 or less) and required that the person NEVER committed a crime involving false SSN, Greencard, Claim to US Citizenship then I could change my opinion of it.

I believe any real immigration reform includes criminalizing illegal presence and other steps to crack-down on illegal immigration.

I also think the AOS from non-immigrant Visas loophole should be closed. Marry a USC while in the US, go ahead and file the I-130 while you're still here but you must return home for the Consular Processing. Maybe that would speed-up the process for those of us doing it the legal way.

[jundp 191]

No,

he came forward when he (1) he couldn't get a new fake Green Card anymore, (2) realized that Gay Marriage would not be signed off by the President, and (3) when he learned that people who would be eligible under the DREAM Act would not be deported any longer. He seized the opportunity to make money, nothing else.

No,

it's because I did not commit document a felony while being here. I did not buy and use fake Green Cards, did not use a fake SSN card, did not seek employment with fake documents, did not claim to be a US citizen. That's why.

Gotcha Thanks for answering. I think there's more to it than just "seizing the opportunity to make money" though.