new whitehouse immigration plan

[John & Annie 0]

There was a news piece i saw recently and i think it was in Texas. The state is going to start denying benefits to illegals and children born of illegals, knowing full well that they are going to be sued. The hope was to get the case to the Supreme Court to get them to rule on Anchor babies.

The actual amendment to the constitution states that babies born of legal residents are citizens and this has been warped to mean everyone.

[homesick_american 1]

There was a news piece i saw recently and i think it was in Texas. The state is going to start denying benefits to illegals and children born of illegals, knowing full well that they are going to be sued. The hope was to get the case to the Supreme Court to get them to rule on Anchor babies.

The actual amendment to the constitution states that babies born of legal residents are citizens and this has been warped to mean everyone.

Didn't California already try that with Prop. 187?

Anyway, go Texas!

[John & Annie 0]

There was a news piece i saw recently and i think it was in Texas. The state is going to start denying benefits to illegals and children born of illegals, knowing full well that they are going to be sued. The hope was to get the case to the Supreme Court to get them to rule on Anchor babies.

The actual amendment to the constitution states that babies born of legal residents are citizens and this has been warped to mean everyone.

Didn't California already try that with Prop. 187?

Anyway, go Texas!

Prop 187 denied all benefits including emergency medical care

[homesick_american 1]

There was a news piece i saw recently and i think it was in Texas. The state is going to start denying benefits to illegals and children born of illegals, knowing full well that they are going to be sued. The hope was to get the case to the Supreme Court to get them to rule on Anchor babies.

The actual amendment to the constitution states that babies born of legal residents are citizens and this has been warped to mean everyone.

Didn't California already try that with Prop. 187?

Anyway, go Texas!

Prop 187 denied all benefits including emergency medical care

Emergency medical care (like an actual emergency, not the flu or primary care) should be the only benefit they get to keep; to take that away would be cruel. But everything else...yank it away. And prosecute the people who employ them. If they can't find work they might just leave on their own.

[John & Annie 0]

I totally agree

[Dr_LHA 3]

.. while illegal aliens make themselves publicly visible with impunity?

Hardly. In my neighborhood, it was an opportunity for all the mostly legal Hispanic high school students to skip classes and tie up traffic in the middle of a work day.

Hardly?

[CountryBoy 0]

the whitehouse has new immigration plan:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/30/imm...n.ap/index.html

seems the $2,000 fine has been changed to $10,000

Hmmmm, after all they were and are breaking the law entering this country illegally. They should be subject to fines or deportation. Maybe by them paying fines we, (the USA), will get back some of our tax money that we have been spending supporting them while they have been here illegaly.

reach449

i agree with you whole heartedly with the illegals that are in the US, they should be fined heavily. my point was that this fine applies also to those who would need a waiver as in my wife's case for a 190 day overstay, which was the mistake of USCIS(they even admitted it was their mistake).

they should be subject to fines AND deportation .. illegal entry should ban them from ever entering the country again in my opinion ..

as far as an overstay, regardless who was at fault .. without knowing all of the details I will go out on a limb and say that I believe it was illegal (otherwise why the need for a waiver) and that person should either

a.) pay the fine willingly and leave the country for good

b.) pay the fine willingly, receive the waiver and leave the country until the process of a legal immigrant visa is completed and then return legally

c.) refuse to do either a or b and be banned from ever entering the U.S. again ..

no case is anymore special than the next .. I really dislike the thought of my tax dollars supporting illegals, regardless the length of stay.

Just my opinion

CB

[Christine n Carl 0]

I dont understand why this is such a problem.

Start enforcing the law...

Fine business's for hiring illegal aliens which is against the law.

Revoke federal dollars to states, that refuse to have there law enforcement arrest illegals and notify ICE.

Create a simple worker program which we used to have..that allows immigrants to be sponsored to this country with temporary work permits, like other nations do.

Anyone currently in this country illegally is subject to immediate deportation, if they want to get a worker sponsered work permit, leave the country and go throught the USCIS nightmares we do.

I dont like this bill because to free up visa's for the so called "not really amnesty" program they will stop or severly reduce legal immigration visa's like visa's for US citizen parents, children etc.

And for someone saying give them emergency care..fine but only on condition they notify ICE for deportation once healed.

I'm so sick of liberals wanting to give illegals more than US citizens have, just so they can increase there voter base.

[homesick_american 1]

I'm so sick of liberals wanting to give illegals more than US citizens have, just so they can increase there voter base.

Oh please; some of the most offensive plans I've seen have come from Republicans. There is no shortage of them calling for amnesty simply because they want to increase their Hispanic voter base.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I'm so sick of liberals wanting to give illegals more than US citizens have, just so they can increase there voter base.

Oh please; some of the most offensive plans I've seen have come from Republicans. There is no shortage of them calling for amnesty simply because they want to increase their Hispanic voter base.

Exactly! I'm sick of people blaming "Liberals" for everything they don't like in the world. George W. Bush is the biggest proponent of immigration reforms that would give illegals a route to citizenship, not these mysterious "liberals" who are the root of all evil.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[prpplague 0]

Hmmmm, after all they were and are breaking the law entering this country illegally. They should be subject to fines or deportation. Maybe by them paying fines we, (the USA), will get back some of our tax money that we have been spending supporting them while they have been here illegaly.

i agree with you whole heartedly with the illegals that are in the US, they should be fined heavily. my point was that this fine applies also to those who would need a waiver as in my wife's case for a 190 day overstay, which was the mistake of USCIS(they even admitted it was their mistake).

they should be subject to fines AND deportation .. illegal entry should ban them from ever entering the country again in my opinion ..

as far as an overstay, regardless who was at fault .. without knowing all of the details I will go out on a limb and say that I believe it was illegal (otherwise why the need for a waiver) and that person should either

a.) pay the fine willingly and leave the country for good

b.) pay the fine willingly, receive the waiver and leave the country until the process of a legal immigrant visa is completed and then return legally

c.) refuse to do either a or b and be banned from ever entering the U.S. again ..

no case is anymore special than the next .. I really dislike the thought of my tax dollars supporting illegals, regardless the length of stay.

Just my opinion

CB

i agree with you with the aspect of illegals that intentionally break the law. where i disagree is the fact that the people who have been the subject of USCIS mistakes and/or unintentially broken the law. just like the tax law, the immigration law is so complex, so broken , and so filled with exceptions, exclusions, and hidden rules, that it is not hard to unintentionally break some aspect of the law. am i saying this is ok? NO! what i am saying is that when the USCIS makes a mistake, the petitioner and his spouse should not be treated as criminals. even in the situation where the law was broken unintentionally, which does by default make you a cirminal, there needs to be methods for correcting the mistake in a resonable manner.

and just a couple of notes, my wife entered the US legally on a visa. my wife's I-94 was marked with the D/S allowing her to stay until she finished her business in the US, however it was entered in the compter as a 6month stay by the USCIS. we didn't even know about the overstay untill we applied for her a IR-1/CR-1. now we are stuck with USCIS mistake. do you really think that we should have to pay for USCIS mistake? how do you think i should tell our two US Citizen children that their mother isn't allowing in the US because some idiot at the airport made a typo? should we have to pay $10,000 fine for a USCIS officers mistake at the POE?

another note, we have lived overseas for almost 3 years. we moved just 6 months after we got married. we have paid taxes every year since we got married! don't you think we are pissed that the US government takes taxes from my salary AND my wifes salary, but doesn't want her to live in the US because of THEIR beaurcratic mistake?

many of the flame wars that get started here are simply because people are talking about different aspects of the immigration issue. in my opinion it boils down to this:

A. proper enforement of existing laws ( i.e. deportation of illegals when detained)

yes we want illegals to be punished, those who intentionally break the law and come to the US without inspection or under false pretense

B. accountability for USCIS procedures (i.e. the adam walsh act nightmare)

we want USCIS to be responsible for lost paperwork, extrordinary delays in processing times, and other mistakes. i think everyone can agree that making USCIS more accoutable for delays and mistakes is not an endorsement for illegals.

C. reasonable methods for correcting mistakes (i.e. our story as well many others posted here)

if you write down your spouses birth day incorrectly on the forms and are then told that you are denied because of misrepresntation, do you really belive that you now need a hardship waiver and pay a $10,000 fine? does correcting a birth date on a form double as an endorsement for illegals? i don't thinks so.

many counties have a policy where if you get pulled over for expired tags or inspection sticker, you can go and get the tags or sticker done within 10 days and take it to the courthouse. for a small fee, usually $10 you get the ticket dismissed. however if you don't get it taken care of you have to pay the full amount of the ticket and possibly other items such as warrants. i'm not trying to trivialize the nature of immigration and the priviliage it is to come to the US, but the methodology does have something to it.

A. it enforces the law for both those who intentionally broke the law and those who unintentionally broke the law

B. it provides people who unitentionally broke the law(i.e. you forgot) to correct the mistake and pay a resonable cost for that "forgiveness"

C. those who intentionally refuse to comply with the law with are punished in proportion to their crime

people who are trying to do the right thing, should be given every opportunity to do the right thing in a fair and reasonable manner.

[kimjoshian 0]

Illegals are illegals! Why give them any consideration??

It would be unfair for those people that waited for several years to enter the U.S. legally. If these illegals are given amnesty, then maybe most of us would have wished that our relatives just crossed the borders illegally.

[Mel_and_Daniel 1]

Bush hails deal on immigration reform

WASHINGTON - Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.

The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S and a separate program to cover agricultural workers. Skills and education-level would for the first time be weighted over family connections in deciding whether future immigrants should get permanent legal status. New high-tech employment verification measures also would be instituted to ensure that workers are here legally.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Bush called it "a much-needed solution to the problem of illegal immigration in this country" and said, if approved, the proposal "delivers an immigration system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair."

"With this bipartisan agreement, I am confident leaders in Washington can have a serious, civil and conclusive debate so I can sign comprehensive reform into law this year," he said in a written statement. Bush planned to make remarks about the bill later Thursday at the White House.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, his party's lead negotiator on the deal, hailed it as "the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."

Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."

The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., called the proposal a "starting point" for that debate, but added that it needs improvement.

"I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration," Reid said in a statement.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that prioritizes immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/immigration_con...4SepMNIjKOs0NUE

[prpplague 0]

Illegals are illegals! Why give them any consideration??

It would be unfair for those people that waited for several years to enter the U.S. legally. If these illegals are given amnesty, then maybe most of us would have wished that our relatives just crossed the borders illegally.

so, in my specific situation where my wife was given an incorrectly marked I-94, no fault of her own, incurred a violation in the law. technically she was in the US illegally for 190 days. doesn't she deserve _some_ consideration?

should she be treated equally with people who come to the US without inspection, without a visa, and work without paying taxes?

[kimjoshian 0]

Your wife's case is different. As you said, it was no fault of her own. I was referring to those people intentionally breaking the law by crossing the border illegally.

I feel for your wife. She is a victim, not the offender.