[quote=ninaprincess]
1. Most illegals have extremely low income at or near minimum wage.
2. Half of illegal children fail to graduate from HS.
3. Most of the gangsters in this states are illegals or children of illegals. Have you been to Santa Ana, Compton or Los Angeles lately?
4. How often you see illegals with one or two children walking beside them, one in a stroller, one in their arms, and one in the belly?
5. Of course, with their diet consist mostly of KFC , Tamales and sodas they will be obese.
.[/quote]

Can you please site the source of the above statistics? Thanks

The bill makes perfect sense to me.

The police’s job it to police and fight crime. It’s not the police’s job to check immigration status.

So what if unauthorized immigrants are of low social-economics. Legalize them so they can get out of the shadows and they’ll better themselves and help grow our economy.

Remember, those immigrants are already in California and aren’t going anywhere. Better to help them move up than keep them down.

[quote=deadzone]
Well if the government actuall enforced employee verification and punished employers of illegal aliens (as per the existing federal laws), many illegals WOULD return home. But, right now they live in the open with no fear, especially in CA. Plus the liberals keep dangling the Amnesty carrot in front of them so they are even more inclined to wait it out.[/quote]

deadzone: Yup, if the gubment did its damn job and enforced the LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS much of this would simply go away (or back over the border.)

But the Dems AND the GOP have more incentive to maintain the status quo ante and continue to buy votes versus risk angering their respective “constituencies.”

Laws are only enforced within reason and within the resources allocated. Some laws are more vigorously enforced than others.

We don’t stop all speeders. And we don’t arrest all drunk drivers.

We don’t enforce all building code violations. Should we have more inspectors drive around and force homeowners to tear down illegal patio covers?

Maybe some states should enforce their laws that make adultery a crime.

I am against elderly legal immigrants collecting SSI and Medi-Cal (who were brought into the US ALREADY elderly) by their “deadbeat” children-sponsors. These often “American Citizen” children-sponsors promise under oath to support their parent(s) for life in exchange for permanent residence status in the US. When their grandchildren grow up and their child-care duties are over, the child-sponsor/parent decides to no longer support them. Or even more often, the child-sponsor overspent on a house they could never afford in the first place, leaving the elderly immigrant-relative homeless when they lose it to foreclosure.

Sponsors should be held to their sponsor-oath they took with the INS. If they can no longer support the immigrant-parent or other elderly relative they sponsored, they need to scare up funds from other relatives, if necessary, to send them back their home country.

This situation is VERY common in South County SD, especially among Filipino families. These elderly immigrants brought over for childcare and house and yard upkeep have NEVER worked in the US and thus NEVER contributed ANYTHING to Social Security. By the time they get their “benefits” (after being “dumped” by their sponsors), they’ve got $550 – $800 mo coming in from SSI, PLUS Medi-Cal/Medicare. Some use a different mailing address (from their sponsor) for purposes of receiving benefits and then later move back in with their sponsor after their sponsor re-establishes another residence after foreclosure.

It’s a scam but my Congressman Bob Filner supports all this. He’s very tight with the immigrant communities.

Theyy’re thinking they’ve successfully turned this into a issue about race and by being pro-immigration they’ll gain cavorted (I mistyped favor my kindlenmade it cavorted. ) with the soon to be future demographic majority

[quote=harvey]What I find interesting about those who are against “illegal” immigration is that almost nobody understands the selection process for “legal” immigrants.

Why are some people allowed in, and others aren’t?

What’s the process, and who controls it?

Who decides which immigrants are “legal?”

And why does everyone assume that the current process is “correct?”[/quote]

There are three designed methods of changing your status from non-resident to resident:
1. Employment based, where an employer initiates the process. The candidate can be in the US. Transition from H1B is the most common scenario, since H1B is a ‘dual intent’ visa, i.e. you do not surrender your right to apply for permanent residency when you apply for H1B. You cannot transfer from visitors (B) or from intra-company (L). In theory the candidate can be outside of the country during the process, but the process in most cases takes too long and few companies will do that. The process generally takes one or more years. If you are from India and the position does not require masters degree you might have to wait a decade or two. About 150K adjusts status every year through EB, and that number includes primary applicants (future employees) and immediate dependents. That includes spouse and children under 18 – the cut off is based on the age at the end of the process and there are cases of children who ‘aged out’ – i.e. turned 18 while waiting.

2. Family based. A citizen can sponsor parents and spouse, subject to no quota. Thanks to the previous amnesty and the rule that says no country can get more than certain % of the total, you can’t really sponsor anyone (including unmarried children and siblings) if you are from Mexico or Philippines since the wait time is ~20y. For the rest of the world, the wait time is ~10y for siblings and ~7y for unmarried children. There are 200-250K adjustments/year.

3. Lottery. ~50K visas/year, you have to be from a country that is not ‘over-represented’ already (like UK, Mexico or China), have highschool diploma or equivalent experience.

If you have AIDS or tuberculosis you can’t immigrate.

The only way to adjust status if you overstay your visa (or come here illegally) is to get married to a citizen, or be granted asylum.

There is constant talk about immigration reform, but most recent ‘major’ change is from Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform that removed family-based immigrants from being eligible for certain benefits. Tech companies are pushing for changes on the employment based side, but democrats (Hispanic caucus in particular) are holding EB hostage. The pattern is simple – one year ‘they’ talk about ‘comprehensive solution’ which includes amnesty in some form and that is blocked by republicans. Then when the initiative fails ‘they’ try partial approach, which is blocked by democrats because ‘we need comprehensive solution’. Occasionally someone will start talking about Canadian/Australian style of immigration program where a candidate gets points for certain things, like high demand occupation, age, language skills, arranged employment, family ties and the influx is controlled by the cut-off number (when economy is doing good they lower the bar, when it’s bad they raise the bar), but that is not supported by the same Hispanic caucus.

Generally, Reagan’s amnesty is seen as major cause of the current problems. It clogged the legal family-based channel and it did not solve the problem of new illegals coming. If anything it made it worse since it created a precedent.