A family's painful split decision

[Fandango 1,439]

Goodness. First we want to emulate Europe with the national ID cards, and now we're looking to emulate North Korea, what with the DMZ with minefields and fences and all.

Who's 'we'?

Supporting the erecting of a fence does not a communist make.

[Caladan 19]

I'd support building a fence if I thought it would do anything besides make Senators look like they're tuff on illegal immigration without actually having to solve the problem.

[mawilson 2,133]

Less revenue generated via taxes...whether the illegal is witholding for God knows how many dependents (wouldnt' that be logical, Alex? Wouldn't it just be common sense to withhold for a higher amt of dependents if they have forged papers and will never see a lawful refund?) and less tax revenue collected by the employer who pays off the books. Remember, employers pay taxes based on the amt of pay as well.

It's a good thing then that Social Security and Medicare are flat taxes -- everyone has to

pay 6.2% and 1.45% of their gross wages, regardless of the number of withholdings.

[mawilson 2,133]

She is also correct that uncontrolled immigration into the United States would be an unmitigated disaster. Take for instance the problems the UK is having right now with social services such as healthcare and schools in certain areas of the country. Some services are stretched to breaking point because of the influx of (legal) migrants from new EU nations. The UK government grossly underestimated the number of migrants headed for these shores and even though over 90% of these migrants are employed and paying taxes, services are STILL struggling.

True, but the UK is a relatively small, overpopulated country. The population density of the US

would be comparable to the UK if everybody in the US moved to Texas.

The US can accommodate a lot more than 300 million people. The more people, the better --

more businesses, more jobs, and ultimately, more wealth.

[mawilson 2,133]

What if the moon were made of cheese?

The fact that spousal visas don't have an annual cap shouldn't be taken for granted, you know.

Many other family-based visa categories (such as brothers/sisters) are capped.

[Fandango 1,439]

What if the moon were made of cheese?

The fact that spousal visas don't have an annual cap shouldn't be taken for granted, you know.

Many other family-based visa categories (such as brothers/sisters) are capped.

But all the speculation...what if this? what if that? seems kinda silly to me...which is why I responded like I did. So if they get rid of the K-1...well they get rid of it. If they limit the K-3, well then future couples will have to deal. What choice would we really have?

The problem is illegal immigration.... We do need a limited immigration policy, because we cannot accept every single person who wants to come here. That should be a no brainer. If not, we'd eventually wind up like one of those lil VWs at the circus with all the clowns jammed in. It is not the 1700s where there's empty land as far as the eye can see...there are 300 some odd million people now. But let's face it...k visas are hardly going to be abolished tomorrow. Can't see the gov't limiting those at the same time as questioning whether we should be giving amnesty to millions of illegals. I think speculation on limiting K-3s is putting the cart before the horse.

As to your prior post.....I never said withholding at a higher rate on a duff ss means they pay no taxes...but with childcare credits and more dependants, & savvy 'accounting'...they'll get less taken out. When it comes to filing time where they might actually OWE more cos they can't prove all the deductions? Hey, it's not in their name anways, so who cares, right?

Edited May 4, 2007 by LisaD

[BJZags 17]

Thought I'd throw this article onto the "fire" of this discussion"

Migration to U.S. Tops Death in Mexico

The Associated Press, May 4, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-M...amp;oref=slogin

Mexico City (AP) -- Mexico has lost more people to migration to the United States than death since 2000, according to a government report released Thursday.

Mexico's demographics agency found that an average of 577,000 people migrated to the U.S. each year between 2000-2005, compared to 495,000 deaths a year in the same period. In 2006, 559,000 migrated and there were 501,000 deaths.

Mexico had 104.9 million residents as of last year, an increase of 6.4 million since 2000.

Immigration to the U.S. has increased drastically since 1970, when 800,000 Mexicans lived north of the border. Today, there are about 11 million Mexicans living in the U.S., both legally and illegally, the report found.

The study also showed more and more Mexicans traveling illegally to the United States.

In 1993-1997, 48 percent of Mexicans who traveled to the United States entered the country illegally. That percentage jumped to 68 percent between 1998-2001 and to 78 percent from 2001-2005, mostly because of stricter security measures tied to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mexico has long pushed the United States to allow more Mexicans to work legally in the U.S. But the U.S. Congress has focused instead on strengthening border security.

[Fandango 1,439]

I'd support building a fence if I thought it would do anything besides make Senators look like they're tuff on illegal immigration without actually having to solve the problem.

you make an excellent point.

[rebeccajo 14]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410e.asp

From the Article:

Immigration, the Declaration, and the Constitution

Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, closed immigration is totally unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close the borders. It is a step in the wrong direction to violate the Constitution further, simply to allow one favored government program to slip through. Such leniency with the Constitution, after all, is how we wound up with so much socialism in the first place.

This brings us to the question of the history of immigration control. Many Americans point to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration Act, which loosened restrictions on immigration somewhat, and associate them with Lyndon Johnson’s socialist Great Society programs of the same era, believing they are another indication that free immigration and socialism go hand in hand.

This does not necessarily follow any more than Andrew Jackson’s opposition to central banking and his atrocious Trail of Tears, when taken together, demonstrate that free-market banking goes hand in hand with the brutal displacement of American Indians. Still, it is often useful to see the political movements associated with certain political trends and opinions.

In the case of immigration, we can go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson cited King George III’s obstruction to immigration to the colonies as a grievance:

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

For most of U.S. history, there were virtually no immigration controls. Some northern states had Black Codes that kept free blacks from entering. Eventually, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

There was always a widespread movement to keep out the newest wave of immigrants, whether it was the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese, Hispanics or whoever. But it wasn’t until the early 1920s that the United States imposed, and widely enforced, sweeping immigration legislation.

[peejay 327]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410e.asp

From the Article:

Immigration, the Declaration, and the Constitution

Moreover, just like all the other socialist federal programs in America, closed immigration is totally unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8 provides no authority whatever to the federal government to close the borders. It is a step in the wrong direction to violate the Constitution further, simply to allow one favored government program to slip through. Such leniency with the Constitution, after all, is how we wound up with so much socialism in the first place.

This brings us to the question of the history of immigration control. Many Americans point to the 1965 amendments to the Immigration Act, which loosened restrictions on immigration somewhat, and associate them with Lyndon Johnson’s socialist Great Society programs of the same era, believing they are another indication that free immigration and socialism go hand in hand.

This does not necessarily follow any more than Andrew Jackson’s opposition to central banking and his atrocious Trail of Tears, when taken together, demonstrate that free-market banking goes hand in hand with the brutal displacement of American Indians. Still, it is often useful to see the political movements associated with certain political trends and opinions.

In the case of immigration, we can go all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson cited King George III’s obstruction to immigration to the colonies as a grievance:

He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

For most of U.S. history, there were virtually no immigration controls. Some northern states had Black Codes that kept free blacks from entering. Eventually, the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

There was always a widespread movement to keep out the newest wave of immigrants, whether it was the Irish, the Chinese, the Japanese, Hispanics or whoever. But it wasn’t until the early 1920s that the United States imposed, and widely enforced, sweeping immigration legislation.

I read the entire linked article. Of course, I disagree. These assertions are preposterous. The USA has "enforced its border and controlled immigration" in the past and can do it again. We should both enforce the border and control immigration in a modern industrial welfare state as America is now. America is no longer a "frontier" nation. That America ceased to exist long ago.

Notice...I didn't state "close the border". "Enforcing and controlling" is not "closing" the border. Totally open borders in modern America is insanity in its worst manifestation.

Unfortunately there are quite a few of the lunatic fringe that propose just that...totally open borders. It would be a monumental and irreparable mistake.

[rebeccajo 14]

Peejay - I'd have to say I agree with you about leaving the borders wide open. But I thought the article had several interesting points, especially about constitutionality.

I think its interesting how American government continues to veer further and further from the original course our forefathers intended. So I didn't link the article so much to state how I feel about immigration, but just as food for thought.

Edited May 5, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Fandango 1,439]

Peejay - I'd have to say I agree with you about leaving the borders wide open.

I'm sorry, come again?

*goes back to read the thread*

[Marilyn. 340]

I don't think she said just let them come in.... she said they would still have to go through security and background checks etc...

I don't think you will find anyone in this community who 'favor' immigration by means other than legal channels.

What I do think you will find are individuals who recognize that our overburdened, expensive, and tedious immigration system only lends itself to desperate means of desperate individuals. It causes confusion amongst those who are less literate. It causes people who have trod what they thought was a legal path to sometimes 'fall through cracks' without knowing it. I really cannot fathom how anyone who has spent any length of time reading about immigration can conclude anything other than the process is frequently overwhelming, technologically archaic, and mind-numbingly slow. In short, the system isn't user-friendly.

The issue, in my opinion, cannot be summed up with a case of patriot breast-beating about how our country is being taken advantage of. As with many issues, there are more layers than meet the eye.

Well hell, if that's the case, what about all those underprivileged people who are neither close in proximity or have the cash or means to get here? What about them? Don't you care how desperate they are Becs?

I don't believe I said a thing about 'caring' for one group of individuals over another. I said the system is unfriendly and difficult to traverse to anyone who desires to come here.

What I would like to see happen with immigration will never come to pass. I would love to see the laws rewritten so that if you want to come to America, you can come. Period. That you wouldn't need one of the myriad of categories of visas. You wouldn't need a sponsor. You would simply fill out the paperwork, subject yourself to a background check, pay a modest fee, and enter the country. You'd go file for a Social Security number, pay your taxes, and register for the draft (if that applied to you). If you could get the states to co-operate (and it takes their cooperation), immigrants wouldn't be able to draw welfare or food stamps for a few years.

The laws of economics would have the same effect on those immigrants as it does for any American citizen - in other words, sink or swim. Those immigrants would be 'equal' in the workplace to their American peers. Predatory wages and abuse of migrant workers would cease. We would see the truth then - if there are really no Americans who would do 'those jobs'. Over the course of time, some immigrants would stay and prosper. Some would go home.

If you do a bit of historical research, you'll find newspaper and political writings during other periods of heavy immigrant influx with many of the same dire predictions we read today. The rhetoric is old and (as history tends to repeat itself) it also appears to be unfounded.

I say let them come. The tired, the poor, the hungry. Let them come.

You know, I guess all I'm saying is that you can believe the family in the article was handled correctly (by being deported) and still say "Man, that sucks for their kids." instead of "Hurray, ten-year-ban mo-fo's throw them in jail to be buggered by apes!" I read the article and thought, "Well, that's about what you'd expect if you get caught, hope their kids manage to graduate high school in the U.S."

We can't have unrestricted immigration; as one of my friends who immigrated from Tehran when he was small said: "Half of Iran would be here tomorrow." It's a lot easier to travel and get plane tickets than it used to be. But I do think that many of the problems with Mexico, for example, stem from NAFTA, and that it's going to be hard to solve the illegal immigration problem without a change in economic policy towards Mexico, and it would be nice if there were an actual visa class for some non-traditionally skilled workers. It's not like there *was* a path for people to come here legally and they skipped it. (I think any plan that just involves building a fence but doesn't also provide a legal path is doomed to failure. Demand is too high.)

From looking around my neighborhood, which is heavily Hispanic, many illegals would even have official sponsors were there a path, so the usual I-864 restrictions could apply. The pattern around here is mostly like this: Hispanic business owner entered legally, his wife entered legally, their kids were born here, and their aunts and uncles are probably overstays or EWIs. And other than immigration, they're law-abiding, and look like the typical tableau of immigrant families. It would be right to deport some of them, legally, but it's hard to see how that would be worth crowing about.

P.S. 25% of illegals are non-Hispanic. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that means at least a quarter aren't EWI, just some form of overstay. That's not just anecdote. Can't jump a fence from Ireland, after all.

Caladan, that's the 'more realistic' version of what I would like to see. And even that is probably unrealistic in today's political climate.

[Fandango 1,439]

I don't think she said just let them come in.... she said they would still have to go through security and background checks etc...

But what she & I were discussing...the formality of that sort of process wouldn't be anything like they are now...meaning just a technicality...but unlimited nonetheless.

Edited May 5, 2007 by LisaD

[rebeccajo 14]

That's what you get for skim-reading Lisa. Go back and read what I originally wrote.

My ENTIRE gripe with the US immigration system is this. If someone is willing to enter legally (which is difficult under the present system due to NO avenues for unskilled workers OTHER than marrying a USC - which creates fraud) AND if they are willing to apply for a SS number thus work legally and pay taxes AND if they are willing to agree not to use welfare programs for a designated number of years AND if they are willing to subject themselves to a security clearance - then they should be allowed to enter.

The US government should ONLY be interested in the prevention of allowing unsavory characters in. They shouldn't be concerned with the free market and they shouldn't be concerned with whether or not a relationship is bonafide. One of the reasons for originally forming a national government was to preserve the union - to protect it. The government needs to get its nose out of the business of citizens private lives and out of the free market its residents create with their personal sweat and toil.

Oh - and if you were wondering why I commented so NEEDLESSLY about a cap on spousal visa, you might want to take a look at the current White House proposal on immigration which would eliminate some family based categories and give those visas to skilled workers instead. Because the economy needs those skilled workers (in their opinion). So now the government is going to start determining where we need workers? Gee, don't we have enough able bodied Americans? I would think you might like to take a look at what your government is doing regards immigration before you spout off about how the government needs to regulate immigration better so that jobs can be preserved. Looks more like they are planning on giving MORE high paying jobs to immigrants - rather than let the free market take its course.

Edited May 5, 2007 by rebeccajo