Illegal Immigrants why so much love?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

12 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

They think.. what does it matter, I'll just use that money I sent back to my home country and smuggle myself back in!

 

Or just cross again illegally and try to get released in the US even if caught.

or pretty much any liberal Democratic run stank hole in the country. Sanctuary 

[laylalex 7,300]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Indeed, they are breaking the law and face the consequences if caught. There is no legal outcome possible. So in the context of my post and VOR's response, perhaps not everyone here is familiar with what "gaming the system" actually means. 

Exactly. There is a difference between people entering without leave/overstaying without either having the means to adjust status or failing to (for whatever reason), and people who come here on a tourist visa with the intent to stay AND adjust. Which is what we were talking about earlier. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Exactly. There is a difference between people entering without leave/overstaying without either having the means to adjust status or failing to (for whatever reason), and people who come here on a tourist visa with the intent to stay AND adjust. Which is what we were talking about earlier. 

Why. They are all illegals? 

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Why. They are all illegals? 

People who come here legally (tourist visa, which is what we're talking about here) but with the intent to stay and adjust aren't here without leave (i.e. entry without inspection or overstay) -- even if what they are doing isn't permitted by the law. So a person who came here on the VWP/ESTA who comes with the intent and doesn't say anything at the border, but gets married and begins adjustment before the 90 days are up is still authorized to be here. Even though what he or she is doing is against the law.

 

When people talk about "illegal" immigrants they are talking about overstays/entry without inspection, they aren't talking about people who say one thing and do another about intent to adjust. Personally, if it were me, I'd rather be a person who is an overstay and didn't adjust than someone who entered with intent and lied about it. One of those you can "fix" by adjusting status (if you marry a USC for example) later on. The other is a big no-no and if the truth gets out...... you hear about denaturalization these days. Even someone who entered without inspection and goes home and rides out their ban can come back if there's no other reason to exclude them, if I understand from my reading on here.

[laylalex 7,300]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Released into the country with a court date that they will never show up for, for 500 Alex

Also please leave my fiance out of this.  

[OrihimeandIchigo 216]

9 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

This is true.

 

When I had moved to Canada in 2011 I was a visitor. Visitors who didn't get a stamp get 6 months (assumed), I filed my PR app in May (outland, but within Canada, due to faster processing times). Around the time my daughter was born, the process of the PR was done but not fast enough, my visitor status was expiring. Rather than try a risky flagpole (go to the border like I was entering US, turn around before leaving Canada), I actually called Fort Erie (at Niagara) from wife's house (Ontario), and talked to one of the CBSA agents that processes things at the counters of the office you'd go into when entering. I told him my situation entirely, and honestly, having all my ducks in a row (insurance, sponsorship declaration from wife and mother in law, since I couldn't, and didn't, legally work yet) for an extended visa and nearing the end of my PR app. He said if I had come to the border and told him what I just said he'd have given a one year extended status until the process was done.. the most important part of what he told me was, "Canada isn't in the business of breaking up families". (I had gotten my Canadian citizenship several years later)

 

That concept had resonated with me significantly, thinking this might be possible in the US, until this whole "children in cages" nonsense in the US. When I talked to the CBSA officer, I was told how so many people follow procedures in Canada and illegal immigration isn't nearly as prevalent. Regardless of my bleeding heart, reality is reality.

 

Therein is the key, you can't make equally friendly laws, because you have so many people, especially coming from south of the border, who don't follow the rules, don't respect US laws and customs, that they have far more respect for in Canada. This I grew up with in California. Not only were illegals handed things on a silver platter, and catered to, but the state even changed the language to Spanish as well to placate them. Beyond the idea I would occasionally hear, mostly in Spanish, that they are entitled to be in the US because it was Mexico's land, and they're taking it back, this is why so many people, especially from Mexico, have this idea that they are special and exclusions to the law. When I had filed for a K1 visa in 2007-08 with an ex (from Greece), I had been helping a lawyer who was working on pro bono apps. When it came time for me to get help, I went to his K1 book and dusted it off.. I was shocked at how he never used it. He almost exclusively encountered the immigrate-stay-for-years-marriage-AOS (fraud) route. Then you have DACA, overwhelmingly targeting specific demographics.. illegals from Mexico and nearby Central American countries, or South American (depending on their current political/economic state to make that trip). I had contacted the Catholic Dioceses in California, they overwhelmingly supported illegal immigration and deal with that given how prevalent it is, said they don't deal much with legal. I'm the type of person that meticulously researches anything like mad and gets numerous opinions on things before making such an important choice where I had only limited expertise. It's why I even consulted lawyers for our IR1 (for wife).

 

Even in my most left wing days when I was voting for candidates in the Peace and Freedom party, or Socialist party (and honestly I still would if I thought there were no better alternatives, it's happened before, I'd easily vote for someone I completely disagree with if I thought there was a good chance their election would result in cleaning up corruption even by a moderate degree), when I was fluently speaking Spanish, and in many ways sympathized with illegals I had met, I was still not a fan at all of illegal immigration. These barriers are in place to ensure social and cultural stability, and is a normal thing (until today's era of destabilizing globalization). We've seen what happens in other parts of the world thanks to reckless, moronic foreign policy of destabilization, where rapid migration and complete evasion of laws are practiced by the populace at large, and as you can see in the years of Trump, this sort of rapid migration and chaos that's being sewn in Europe is already brought to the US. 

 

What people need to do is stop playing the political game that those, in media, and politicians, who advocate open borders and amnesty for breaking the law (when you, as a citizen, would be granted no amnesty, nor should you be), are dumb when in fact they are dangerous people fomenting the Republic's demise. This is one of the issues that used to bring people of both sides together, unfortunately, segments of the population, most of which are overwhelmingly on the left (but includes their lovely newfound partners, neocons, neoliberals, and some libertarians), knows the consequences, and have decided they are perfectly okay with it. Which is why they work so hard to upend everything that keeps things in the US remotely stable, they actively participate in gaslighting people (as a method of psychological paralysis). People really have to learn to stick to their guns and stop giving equal weight to malicious ideas and intentions. If you follow basic principles easily laid out by the Constitution, by the founding fathers, it becomes significantly harder for these bad people to be successful, even as they try and destroy US history through this moronic statue toppling and book burning.. the very tactics the Bolsheviks (German communists also called Antifa) used to violently seize power. 

DANG that was a amazing read. Thank you 😊 

[OrihimeandIchigo 216]

12 hours ago, Sparkle Sparkle said:

And we are not. K1 is relatively a new kid on the block...B1/B2 's have always existed and folks have always gone through with AOS using them.

But I thought B2 were for non immigrant and tourists? How are they able to adjust? 

 

Shouldn't there be more regulation or more burden of proof something "emergency or extremehardship" happened to make them adjust other than "oh im in love I dont want to be away from them" if you read this forum many people who are married and engaged are living even 2 years apart doing it the legal way. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

5 hours ago, OrihimeandIchigo said:

But I thought B2 were for non immigrant and tourists? How are they able to adjust? 

 

Shouldn't there be more regulation or more burden of proof something "emergency or extremehardship" happened to make them adjust other than "oh im in love I dont want to be away from them" if you read this forum many people who are married and engaged are living even 2 years apart doing it the legal way. 

That is the loophole right there. They technically are not supposed to come over here and just adjust status through marriage to a USC. But if they "all of a sudden get married and want to stay" then they can adjust their status through marriage to a USC. That's what makes getting a tourist visa so hard for many countries because many many many people did it in the past. 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[TBoneTX 45,959]

19 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

they "all of a sudden get married and want to stay"

Known in consular parlance as "the change of mind at Baggage Claim."

[pablo2752 106]

The fact that DACA can get instate tuition but not F1 students is bizarre to me. I went to high school under F2 and when I was applying for college before COSing to F1, I was incredibly distraught that me living 4 years in a certain state did not give me any tuition incentives....which is why I had to go high and low to find colleges that offered generous merit scholarship regardless the citizenship. Meanwhile, people on DACA get in state tuition and all kinds of other tax-funded benefits that we don't qualify for??? I have nothing against DACA, really, but this is nothing short of incentivizing illegal immigration. 

Edited August 4, 2020 by pablo2752

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, pablo2752 said:

The fact that DACA can get instate tuition but not F1 students is bizarre to me. I went to high school under F2 and when I was applying for college before COSing to F1, I was incredibly distraught that me living 4 years in a certain state did not give me any tuition incentives....which is why I had to go high and low to find colleges that offered generous merit scholarship regardless the citizenship. Meanwhile, people on DACA get in state tuition and all kinds of other tax-funded benefits that we don't qualify for??? I have nothing against DACA, really, but this is nothing short of incentivizing illegal immigration. 

And yet some will try to tell you how bad DACA folks have it, and how they don't enjoy any rights.  We need to legalize DACAs and let them enjoy GC status, but giving them rights as illegals sets a bad precedent, IMO.

[pablo2752 106]

I mean, I feel bad for DACA children - they have been dealt bargain in lives because of their parents...whether they moved as economic migrants or fleeing from violence(which is truly tragic). My point was how democrats do little for legal immigration, just like the OP stated. If I had any authority in this matter, I would do the following things: 

 

1. Expand the definition of deportable aliens to include those that use mean-tested benefit over certain dollar values. Or, the sponsor who signed I-864 will pay back the amount with significant interest.

2. Parents that enters the US without inspections and gave birth to the US citizen will be forever ineligible for permanent residence benefit without possibility of waivers. They can only be allowed in the country once in three years up to duration of 90 days and a guarantor signature from the US citizen children and a deposit of certain amount to the DHS. Violation will result in forfeiture of deposit and permanent bars of the parents.

3. If undocumented aliens who lived in the US for a long time have paid equal or more tax than the other legally present aliens at the same level income,  they may either apply for limited residence under the condition of paying taxes as resident aliens without any tax refunds or leave with permanent bars. 

4. Non-Citizen or Non-LPR Children of the illegal immigrants should not be eligible for in-state tuition. They must pay out-of-state tuition unless individual states decide to allow in state tuition for both legal aliens and illegal alien

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

29 minutes ago, pablo2752 said:

I mean, I feel bad for DACA children - they have been dealt bargain in lives because of their parents...whether they moved as economic migrants or fleeing from violence(which is truly tragic). My point was how democrats do little for legal immigration, just like the OP stated. If I had any authority in this matter, I would do the following things: 

 

1. Expand the definition of deportable aliens to include those that use mean-tested benefit over certain dollar values. Or, the sponsor who signed I-864 will pay back the amount with significant interest.

2. Parents that enters the US without inspections and gave birth to the US citizen will be forever ineligible for permanent residence benefit without possibility of waivers. They can only be allowed in the country once in three years up to duration of 90 days and a guarantor signature from the US citizen children and a deposit of certain amount to the DHS. Violation will result in forfeiture of deposit and permanent bars of the parents.

3. If undocumented aliens who lived in the US for a long time have paid equal or more tax than the other legally present aliens at the same level income,  they may either apply for limited residence under the condition of paying taxes as resident aliens without any tax refunds or leave with permanent bars. 

4. Non-Citizen or Non-LPR Children of the illegal immigrants should not be eligible for in-state tuition. They must pay out-of-state tuition unless individual states decide to allow in state tuition for both legal aliens and illegal alien

Neither party has done anything to improve immigration for as long as I can remember.  It's just talking points around election time that then ends up in the can getting kicked down the road.  (I DO think that dems tend towards allowing open borders then promising free stuff to obtain voters down the road).

 

1. Not bad

 

2. Not bad, but how much of a deposit would you want to see?  I know people who have been offered $10-20,000 to marry a foreigner for immigration purposes.  So if you set the bar higher than that to avoid fraud, you are likely going to exceed the dollar amount that legit visitors can put in escrow

 

3. Not unless they meet DACA parameters.  Otherwise, all who entered illegally and then worked and paid taxes will be rewarded for having broken the law.  Also don't see how one would be able to prevent a tax refund, as that is how our entire tax system works... pay too much, and you get a refund.  

 

4. I disagree a bit.  NO illegal immigrants should ever get tuition breaks nor welfare (that I can think of right now; I am sure someone smarter than me can think of valid examples on a case-by-case basis).  Other than health care if life or death is at hand, illegals should have to pay for everything out of pocket.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Voice of Reason

[pablo2752 106]

24 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Neither party has done anything to improve immigration for as long as I can remember.  It's just talking points around election time that then ends up in the can getting kicked down the road.  (I DO think that dems tend towards allowing open borders then promising free stuff to obtain voters down the road).

 

1. Not bad

 

2. Not bad, but how much of a deposit would you want to see?  I know people who have been offered $10-20,000 to marry a foreigner for immigration purposes.  So if you set the bar higher than that to avoid fraud, you are likely going to exceed the dollar amount that legit visitors can put in escrow

 

3. Not unless they meet DACA parameters.  Otherwise, all who entered illegally and then worked and paid taxes will be rewarded for having broken the law.  Also don't see how one would be able to prevent a tax refund, as that is how our entire tax system works... pay too much, and you get a refund.  

 

4. I disagree a bit.  NO illegal immigrants should ever get tuition breaks nor welfare (that I can think of right now; I am sure someone smarter than me can think of valid examples on a case-by-case basis).  Other than health care if life or death is at hand, illegals should have to pay for everything out of pocket.

2. I believe that the USCIS also implemented whether those whose I485 are approved may still have to deposit some money up to $8000? If I wasn't clear enough, I meant that the guarantor has to pay the deposit. Perhaps you can slap some misdemeanor charges on the guarantors and felony charges on the visitors? Sounds harsh, but that's the whole point. 

3. Oh, yeah good point. Maybe it should be limited to DACA recipients or those who came with H1B (or children of H1B) but were never given chance to file GC. I truly feel bad for families who came with H1B/H4 but didn't get employment based green cards. 

4. Agreed, but I want to make some specific exceptions...such as those who came on legal dual intent visas but somehow lapsed. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, pablo2752 said:

2. I believe that the USCIS also implemented whether those whose I485 are approved may still have to deposit some money up to $8000? If I wasn't clear enough, I meant that the guarantor has to pay the deposit. Perhaps you can slap some misdemeanor charges on the guarantors and felony charges on the visitors? Sounds harsh, but that's the whole point. 

3. Oh, yeah good point. Maybe it should be limited to DACA recipients or those who came with H1B (or children of H1B) but were never given chance to file GC. I truly feel bad for families who came with H1B/H4 but didn't get employment based green cards. 

4. Agreed, but I want to make some specific exceptions...such as those who came on legal dual intent visas but somehow lapsed. 

Also, as has been mentioned here in CEHST many times over the years, slapping harsh fines on employers who hire illegals need to be enforced.  Put a price on doing so of around $100,000 per instance should help reduce the lure of cheap employees (nearly slave labor).