OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America

[moneymaker]

[quote=deadzone]Well they do know that if they manage to elude border patrol, there is very little chance they will ever be deported and they will be able to live and work in relative peace.

They also know that if they have a child born here, that baby will be instant US citizen and through their baby they will start qualifying for welfare.

Additionally, they do know there was a mass amnesty in the 1980s, and politically there is push for it again (AKA “immigration reform”) so they have reasonable hope and expectation that if they stay here long enough, they will eventually be granted citizenship.[/quote]

I think the way it works is they come across, they get caught,they get processed,they get released here in the US,they don’t show up for court and then stay here as long as they are never arrested again.

[Anonymous]

I love the title of this thread.

I’m also amused by those that think “they” have some sort of long-term plan based on knowledge of US policy going back decades, as if they were planning a strategy for their 401K investments.

The desperately poor do not have such luxuries.

They survive, one day at a time.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=barnaby33]
They are illegal. Being here without documents is breaking the law. [/quote]

No it’s not illegal. You could be born in the woods or a remote indian tribe in usa and have no us document.

I don’t believe there is any law that addresses undocumented presence and makes it a crime.

[CA renter]

[quote=barnaby33]

And before anyone stands on the “but they are illegal” dogma, well I would be more sympathetic to that argument if Boehner would let immigration reform come up for a vote. But by blocking reform, all goodwill I have for the “illegal” argument evaporates.

So you only respect laws that are up for change? Going all Hobby Lobby on us?

They are illegal. Being here without documents is breaking the law. A set of laws we’ve had for a long time, though sadly not well enforced.

The situation is Central America is as complex as here and the coyotes who sell passage are feeding off of a change in policy and the violence is driving more people to leave.

I’d be a lot more open to immigration “reform” ie letting in more people as long as the birth rates in all of our population donor countries were brought down to replacement rates.

We are a nation of former immigrants. However we’re over capacity and so is everyone else. How does admitting large groups of low skilled people because their countries are unstable make the world better? Why is it that because a century ago America was filled with immigrants this must always be so?
Josh[/quote]

Good post, Josh.

[barnaby33]

Flyer, you make a point, much like a Jesuit. You pick a minor case and use it to make a major point. There are as far as I know only two types of citizenship, right of place, or right of blood. America happens to be a right of place citizenship. If you are born in the woods or a remote Indian tribe you are still entitled to documents. The people in question are most assuredly not. The proof is in the fact that they do not obtain them before coming.

I actually have real world first person experience in this as I tried to get a lovely woman a visa to come visit me. A woman I’ve been dating off and on for two years. Recently she was denied that visa. I can either accept that, or import her, “ILLEGALY.”

[NotCranky]

[quote=barnaby33]Flyer, you make a point, much like a Jesuit. You pick a minor case and use it to make a major point. There are as far as I know only two types of citizenship, right of place, or right of blood. America happens to be a right of place citizenship. If you are born in the woods or a remote Indian tribe you are still entitled to documents. The people in question are most assuredly not. The proof is in the fact that they do not obtain them before coming.

I actually have real world first person experience in this as I tried to get a lovely woman a visa to come visit me. A woman I’ve been dating off and on for two years. Recently she was denied that visa. I can either accept that, or import her, “ILLEGALY.”[/quote]

Import her illegally marry her and go to mexico and spend a couple of weeks immigrating her, live happily ever after.

[paramount]

California is now recommending a shower every other day and yet were taking on more people.

The dems/libs will stop at nothing to build their ranks.

[Anonymous]

[quote=barnaby33]Flyer, you make a point, much like a Jesuit. You pick a minor case and use it to make a major point. There are as far as I know only two types of citizenship, right of place, or right of blood. America happens to be a right of place citizenship. If you are born in the woods or a remote Indian tribe you are still entitled to documents. The people in question are most assuredly not. The proof is in the fact that they do not obtain them before coming.

I actually have real world first person experience in this as I tried to get a lovely woman a visa to come visit me. A woman I’ve been dating off and on for two years. Recently she was denied that visa. I can either accept that, or import her, “ILLEGALY.”[/quote]

Can her passport get her into Mexico?

[FlyerInHi]

Barnaby, the law is actually very simple. Use reason, follow the law and you’re good. Don’t like the law, then work to change it.

“Illegal” has a meaning. There has to be a specific law making an act illegal and punishable.

Undocumented presence is not illegal. Entry without prior approval is not illegal. The government can however detain and deport non-citizens and levy administrative fees.

The “people in question” are children. There is a 2008 law, signed by George W. Bush, that requires that children be given immigration hearings before being deported. So the government cannot summarily deport them.

I have come across many immigrants. In fact my dry-cleaner is undocumented. She’s been here for over 10 years. I’ve helped people fill out paperwork so I sympathize with documented or undocumented. All I did was read the immigration forms, and, over time, I’ve come to understand the law.

You cannot get a tourist visa for your girlfriend. She has to get it on her own. If she tells the consular officer that she’s visiting her boyfriend, then she’ll most likely be denied because a tourist visa is for tourism, not romance, possible marriage or immigration. They don’t care if you vouch for her.

She has a better chance telling the consul that she’s dreamt about the Statue of Liberty her whole life and wants to see it. She just needs to prove that she can afford the trip; or that she has a generous friend (you) giving her money to fulfill her dream.

If you want to marry her, you can petition for your fiancée. That’s pretty quick. Then you get married in the USA. After marriage you petition for adjustment of status.

If you marry her abroad, then you can petition for your wife. But that will take longer than the fiancée route because your now wife has to wait out the whole immigrant visa application process while out of country.

There is nothing mysterious really. Just read a little and you’ll understand.

You may think it’s unjust that your girlfriend can’t visit but undocumented children get immigration hearings while in the country. The two issues are not even related.

[barnaby33]

This isn’t about me per se and though I’m frustrated about what happened, I know why it happened. Writing a long post attempting to re-direct the discussion about my issue was strange to say the least.

I wrote a much longer response but I realize that you have your position, it’s based on your experiences and I have mine.

Unless you believe in unlimited immigration, which you may, at some point you must say, “no mas.”

So by all means lets give the kids all a chance to make an asylum case, and send those home that fail to make it. After all, that’s our law.

[UCGal]

[quote=paramount]California is now recommending a shower every other day and yet were taking on more people.

The dems/libs will stop at nothing to build their ranks.[/quote]
What’s your source for the shower every other day? Is it an official recommendation? Or just something some non-official advocacy groups recommend?

[Anonymous]

I think the point of Josh’s frustration (and most of our frustration on this issue) is the contradictions in our immigration policies and enforcement.

It is well known fact that we have millions of illegal immigrants living here, working here, going to school, driving cars, etc. and doing so in virtual peace with no worries about law enforcement at any level threatening them.

Meanwhile, for the rest of the world that doesn’t illegally enter our borders, it can be very difficult just to obtain a tourist visa to enter the U.S., even though in most cases these people don’t intend to illegally live and work in the U.S, instead they want to come here and spend money.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=UCGal][quote=paramount]California is now recommending a shower every other day and yet were taking on more people.

The dems/libs will stop at nothing to build their ranks.[/quote]
What’s your source for the shower every other day? Is it an official recommendation? Or just something some non-official advocacy groups recommend?[/quote]

I don’t like to shower every day. My wife says I smell but I think she’s getting used to it. I just like to be a little oily.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=deadzone]Speaking of H1B, I’m not a big fan of that either. Does your colleage, for instance, provide some type of unique skill that no American citizen can provide? I doubt it. The H1B program is clearly a scam used by corporations to hire cheap technical labor.[/quote]

How about H1Bs for doctors? I am sure there are enough doctors to screw you over for only $100 per visit instead of $400 per visit.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=barnaby33]This isn’t about me per se and though I’m frustrated about what happened
[/quote]

Just saying your lovely friend was not unfairly treated. That’s just the process we have in place.

That process will not change even if we deport all the kids immediately.

[quote=barnaby33]
Unless you believe in unlimited immigration, which you may,
[/quote]

You make it sound like current law amounts to unlimited immigration. The current system is quite restrictive, even if we provide a path to citizenship. That can hardly be called a liberal immigration policy.

[quote=barnaby33]
at some point you must say, “no mas.”
[/quote]

I doubt “no mas” will ever happen.

America has a tradition of immigration. Traditions die hard.

[Author]

Posts