Brining my Mom to the USA

[akdiver 3]

find your comment that they should be saying "illegal Mexicans" incredibly offensive when there are illegals in this country from all over the world.

Why?? Maybe he wasn't talking about illegals from all the other countries in the world - he was only talking about the illegals from Mexico. Why is that so offensive?

Cheers!

AKDiver

[kitkat1 5]

find your comment that they should be saying "illegal Mexicans" incredibly offensive when there are illegals in this country from all over the world.

Why?? Maybe he wasn't talking about illegals from all the other countries in the world - he was only talking about the illegals from Mexico. Why is that so offensive?

Cheers!

AKDiver

He said

There's a big stink in the media about illegals

Right, there's a big issue in this country about illegal immigration that encompasses people from all over the world. It's not only about Mexicans. Therefore, saying "illegal Mexicans" instead of "illegal immigrants" is both inaccurate and offensive since they are not the only illegals in the country.

[Boiler 45,525]

find your comment that they should be saying "illegal Mexicans" incredibly offensive when there are illegals in this country from all over the world.

Why?? Maybe he wasn't talking about illegals from all the other countries in the world - he was only talking about the illegals from Mexico. Why is that so offensive?

Cheers!

AKDiver

He said

There's a big stink in the media about illegals

Right, there's a big issue in this country about illegal immigration that encompasses people from all over the world. It's not only about Mexicans. Therefore, saying "illegal Mexicans" instead of "illegal immigrants" is both inaccurate and offensive since they are not the only illegals in the country.

Obvioiusly all Countries are represented.

However Mexicans account for roughly half, add other Hispanics and you have the majority covered. And it is a numbers game, if it was a few hundreds of thousands, would not be perceived to be an issue.

And to keep it on topic, next time I go into Home Depot and they have self check out options in Russian (or whatever) then it will be more logical to make the distinction.

I think the visa issue has been done to death, and anybody can post in any forums.

[Satellite 1]

I find your comment that they should be saying "illegal Mexicans" incredibly offensive when there are illegals in this country from all over the world.

Statistically speaking, who are the majority of illegal immigrants in the US? Based on this logic there is nothing to be offended about.

[akdiver 3]

Right, there's a big issue in this country about illegal immigration that encompasses people from all over the world. It's not only about Mexicans. Therefore, saying "illegal Mexicans" instead of "illegal immigrants" is both inaccurate and offensive since they are not the only illegals in the country.

I think you are deluding yourself. When the media (Congress, the President, whomever) mentions the big problem with illegals, the media is talking about illegals from Mexico. Newsflash!! Hello!!! No one is talking about or is real concerned with the flood of illegal immigrants coming in from Canada, the U.K., Hong Kong, Cambodia, or other such places. While they may be coming in, it's not the problem people are talking about. If you don't understand this, you're just not paying attention. If you need convincing, go out and get yourself a map. Then look at the country just south of the US and note the large, unprotected border there and compare that with the population of illegal immigrants in the neighboring states.

Cheers!

AKDiver

[slim 1,525]

Seems like I really don't need to comment here.

Funny, the only person "offended" by my previous post was someone sponsoring an immigrant from Mexico. They should be the most outraged person on the thread when it comes to this issue, and the staunchest supporter of deporting illegals. (Kids or not.)

Someone they care for is going about immigration the legal way while millions and millions are going about it illegally.

To clarify my position for this "offended" poster, I do believe illegal immigrants from every country should be treated the same way. However, illegal immigration is not a problem because 20 million Canadians are in the U.S. working illegally. It is a problem because 20 million Mexicans are here illegally. That said, I have no problem at all with anyone coming here willing to work their @$$ off to support themselves and their family. If Americans would do this themselves, we wouldn't need to worry about illegal immigrants because they wouldn't be here. All the jobs would be filled by those who would rather sit around watching free cable and eating shrimp and steak in their free apartments that the rest of us (taxpaying) Americans pay for. Simple supply and demand, really. But, since I'm a capitalist, hat's off to Mexicans here in the U.S., legal or otherwise.

[Cliff_Ksenia 0]

Being raised in South Texas I can assure you there is a massive problem with illegal immigration that hurts all Americans and those whom intend to become Americans or American residents. If you don't think so, go spend sometime in our southern states along the border.

Back on topic; In US we have many things with we can get bonded for or provide monetary guarentee somthing will happen, why can't US immigration have say a $10k security bond for visiting immigrants (that the US citizen can put up) to help insure their timily departure?

[Satellite 1]

Back on topic; In US we have many things with we can get bonded for or provide monetary guarantee something will happen, why can't US immigration have say a $10k security bond for visiting immigrants (that the US citizen can put up) to help insure their timely departure?

Because people pay way more than 10k for help to get into the country illegally, doing it through a bond would now make it both easier and official. I do like your suggestion, but I would raise it to criminal sanctions for the USC as well. Although in the end, it all boils down to sovereignty and the government can exclude whomever they want. Edited February 19, 2007 by Satellite

[Boiler 45,525]

Back on topic; In US we have many things with we can get bonded for or provide monetary guarantee something will happen, why can't US immigration have say a $10k security bond for visiting immigrants (that the US citizen can put up) to help insure their timely departure?

Because people pay way more than 10k for help to get into the country illegally, doing it through a bond would now make it both easier and official. I do like your suggestion, but I would raise it to criminal sanctions for the USC as well. Although in the end, it all boils down to sovereignty and the government can exclude whomever they want.

Agree that $10k makes no sense - $100k may be looked at some as being cheap. But it would have to be without get outs, you have to leave withing the I-94, no entensions/adjustments etc, even if in a coffin, or the bond os forfeit.

But the Criminal aspect makes no sense to me, I can think of no comparable scenario.

[Satellite 1]

But the Criminal aspect makes no sense to me, I can think of no comparable scenario.

I was thinking more how a court of equity functions with its civil contempt powers. A little off on the terminology. For example if you are ordered by the court to say make sure such an alien departs (mandatory injunction). And you disobey, then you can be placed in civil contempt "jail" until the alien departs. It would add some weight to your responsibility as an inviting USC. But its all theoretical if you are into that kind of stuff.

But it would have to be without get outs, you have to leave withing the I-94, no entensions/adjustments etc, even if in a coffin, or the bond os forfeit.

I like this idea too, but I think we'd get in trouble with the international human rights folks if you strictly enforce without allowing to file for Asylum or Convention Against Torture. Edited February 19, 2007 by Satellite

[Boiler 45,525]

But the Criminal aspect makes no sense to me, I can think of no comparable scenario.

I was thinking more how a court of equity functions with its civil contempt powers. A little off on the terminology. For example if you are ordered by the court to say make sure such an alien departs (mandatory injunction). And you disobey, then you can be placed in civil contempt "jail" until the alien departs. It would add some weight to your responsibility as an inviting USC. But its all theoretical if you are into that kind of stuff.

But it would have to be without get outs, you have to leave withing the I-94, no entensions/adjustments etc, even if in a coffin, or the bond os forfeit.

I like this idea too, but I think we'd get in trouble with the international human rights folks if you strictly enforce without allowing to file for Asylum or Convention Against Torture.

1. How do you make an alien depart? Well you can not. So how can you criminalise somebody for not doing something the law does not permit them to do.

2. Once you allow exceptions it all falls apart. They caould of course still file etc, just the Bond would be forfeit. The cases you mention are of course also those most open to fraud and misuse.

Anyway, will not happen.

[Satellite 1]

1. How do you make an alien depart? Well you can not. So how can you criminalize somebody for not doing something the law does not permit them to do.

It's done almost everyday if I am not mistaken. Some leave voluntarily when the immigration court gives the alien voluntary departure. Others, once in custody are physically deported back to their country of origin.

In terms of your question, (1) drop the notion of criminalization, that was my mistake for putting it in. Instead think of the penalty of contempt as a violation of a court order if you as a sponsor are asked by the court to make sure someone leaves and you disobey by not complying. (2) I agree with you that it is impractical to have private citizens enforce deportations even of the people they invited. So as it stands, bad I idea But unless someone wants to start throwing around new ideas we'll just have live with what we got today which is people from wealthy and trusted countries get to visit the US and the rest of the world has to jump through huge hurdles.

Anyway, will not happen.

Couldn't agree more.

[Boiler 45,525]

The problem of course looming is that the wealthy and trusted countries have significany monoritities where trust is an issue.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Annabelle 0]

Hey, everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Do you remember me?

I'm so excited!!!!!!! My Mom got her visa!!!!!!!!

I haven't talked to her yet because she is on the way home from Moscow but I know she got approved! Our congressman, Artur Davis called us today early in the morning to let us know they got a reply from the Embassy that my mom is approved!! Such a relief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so happy! She is coming in July when my baby is due!!!!!!! WOW!

[walls1010 3]

Hey, everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Do you remember me?

I'm so excited!!!!!!! My Mom got her visa!!!!!!!!

I haven't talked to her yet because she is on the way home from Moscow but I know she got approved! Our congressman, Artur Davis called us today early in the morning to let us know they got a reply from the Embassy that my mom is approved!! Such a relief!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so happy! She is coming in July when my baby is due!!!!!!! WOW!

Congratulations and I'm happy for you