immigration Reform via Executive Order

"Follow the rules" is bullshit when, by our rules, there is NO WAY to gain legal access and people are dying all around you.

I went to an immigration attorney not long ago to see how I could get someone into the country legally. I am a natural-born citizen who was willing to hire, provide health insurance for, and provide room and board. I was willing to jump through any and all necessary hoops. I was willing to put thousands of dollars into it. I didn't care if it took years.

Couldn't do it.

I'm married, so I couldn't marry the guy (a process that takes years and thousands of dollars and does not grant your spouse citizenship - they can apply after a decade of marriage.)

He doesn't have a four-year-degree or a desperately needed technical skill, so I couldn't hire him (gone, apparently, are the days when you could hire someone as a housekeeper. Also, to be hired, he'd have to show proof that he did not intend to immigrate.)

I could get him into college if I could show that I could pay for his tuition and room and board (even if he would not need those things) upfront and he made all the required entrance exams and whatnot, but he would only be allowed to stay as long as he was enrolled, he would not be allowed to work, and as soon as he graduated, he'd be gone.

He was not related to me, but even if he was, the waiting list on getting relatives in is currently so long that it would take over a decade to hear back on my application.

He was not "internationally recognized" in any of the fields that would get him into the country.

If he could invest 50,000 into the US economy, he could stay a few years - but only a few years, and I could not in any way help him get the money to invest. His financial records for the last five years would be scrutinized to make sure he made the money himself.

If he owned half or more of a business worth a certain amount (the attorney said about 100,000) then he could come over - but the business would have to be of a certain size, bring in a certain amount of income, and had to be profitable enough to support more than the immediate family. I asked if I could start a 100,000 business and simply give him half; the answer was "Probably not. These things are looked at very closely."

What nefarious, far away, sketchy place is this guy from?

Canada.

I can't bring someone here from fucking Canada, and it's breaking my heart.

Now imagine the person trying to get into America is a ten-year-old child from the Honduras with no American working to bring them over.

It's impossible. They can't do it. There is no way for them to get here and get away from the bloodshed in their country legally, so in hope of having something other than a short, desperate, blood-drenched life they come here illegally.

I have some very ugly thoughts about anyone who would deny them that.

Fingers said:

I don't get it. If I try to get into any other country in the world without the proper documentation, I will be detained, arrested, or deported without so much as a second thought from those countries. Hell, I cant even get into Canada anymore without a passport. So why should we let others who break our laws by entering our country illegally just walk free? Our immigration laws are not that much different from other countries, what makes our laws unfair or wrong?

Click to expand...

The laws are the same many places. You can't get into this country without a passport either, unless you, say, sneak across the border, same exact way you could get into Canada.

Many places with less space and many fewer resources, however, take in many more immigrants and refugees than the U.S.

Amadan said:

I find them extremely problematic when they are issued to preempt legislative powers.

Click to expand...

Considering Congress has been sitting on the issue and flatly refusing to do anything with it for months, if not years, how is this in any way pre-emptive?

Fingers said:

I don't get it. If I try to get into any other country in the world without the proper documentation, I will be detained, arrested, or deported without so much as a second thought from those countries. Hell, I cant even get into Canada anymore without a passport. So why should we let others who break our laws by entering our country illegally just walk free? Our immigration laws are not that much different from other countries, what makes our laws unfair or wrong?

Click to expand...

Actually, there are many countries with millions of illegal immigrants.

India is estimated to have tens of millions. South Africa, a much smaller country than the US, has about 10 million illegal immigrants as well.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

The US is unique only in that we have a 2000 mile border with a region whose poverty and lack of opportunity makes it a prime destination for those seeking a better life.

Monkey said:

Now imagine the person trying to get into America is a ten-year-old child from the Honduras with no American working to bring them over.

Click to expand...

To be fair, that ten year old from Honduras would be immediately taking away jobs from hard working Americans /end sarcasm.

Not to mention that vicious strain of Guatemalan Ebola they're all carrying.

raburrell said:

Not to mention that vicious strain of Guatemalan Ebola they're all carrying.

Click to expand...

Nah. Now that elections are over, Ebola's a non-issue.

I loved seeing the woman on the news tonight, who has been here long enough to have a US born daughter in college, and who still can't speak English.

MM

Language-learning ability is not a valid determination of someone's worth or love for their country, whether they were born there or immigrated.

Monkey said:

I can't bring someone here from fucking Canada, and it's breaking my heart.

Now imagine the person trying to get into America is a ten-year-old child from the Honduras with no American working to bring them over.

It's impossible. They can't do it. There is no way for them to get here and get away from the bloodshed in their country legally, so in hope of having something other than a short, desperate, blood-drenched life they come here illegally.

I have some very ugly thoughts about anyone who would deny them that.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry about your friend, but why is he entitled to move here? He'd likely have similar problems emigrating to most nations, especially wealthy ones that are desirable destinations for much of the world. I was mildly curious about emigrating to Canada a while ago (not that I actually had any plans to do so) and found that a U.S. citizen can't freely move to Canada either. There are ways to do it, but as with your friend who wants to come to the U.S., they usually involve spending a lot of money and/or bringing vital skills.

I don't blame people who come here illegally to escape conditions of poverty and warfare. If I were in their shoes, it's likely I'd try to do the same thing.

At the same time, I do not think everyone in the world has a right to immigrate to America. Nor do we have a responsibility to take in every refugee in the world who wants to come here.

I'd like to see us doing more to make things better in the countries they are fleeing from. But our history of international intervention is... mixed, at best.

There are no good or easy answers. I'm not in the "No amnesty, ever," camp. Most crimes have a statute of limitations; I think it's reasonable to give a path to legal residency to people who have been here for years as law abiding people contributing to the economy.

But I'm also not in favor of open borders. Or increased immigration. Realistically, that means that yes, we're going to be denying entry to a lot of people trying to escape desperate circumstances.

My misgivings about Obama's use of Executive Orders notwithstanding, I hope something good comes out of whatever policy he announces.

cmhbob said:

I support immigration through legal channels, and I said earlier that the current system is indeed broken and needs some changes. I'm just not in favor of rewarding bad behavior and setting up a flood of bad behavior in the process, which is the other problem with amnesty.

Click to expand...

This.

What gives him the right?

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Click to expand...

Or, if you don't like that answer, he's no less valid a human being, no less worthy, no less innovative, creative, useful, talented, hard-working, or driven than someone born ten miles away across that invisible line we pretend divides peoples allegiances, hearts, and families despite that not always being the case.

Or, perhaps you prefer to look at it completely selfishly. But even by that measure, immigrants CONTRIBUTE to this country. Even illegal ones. They grow our economy, pay taxes, and take shit jobs for low pay with a smile on their face. They are ASSETS.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty is not written into our laws. Yes, it's an ideal we admire, but that doesn't mean it's a realistic policy we can maintain for all time.

Monkey said:

Or, if you don't like that answer, he's no less valid a human being, no less worthy, no less innovative, creative, useful, talented, hard-working, or driven than someone born ten miles away across that invisible line we pretend divides peoples allegiances, hearts, and families despite that not always being the case.

Click to expand...

Of course not. That doesn't answer the question - why is he entitled to move here?

Or, perhaps you prefer to look at it completely selfishly. But even by that measure, immigrants CONTRIBUTE to this country. Even illegal ones. They grow our economy, pay taxes, and take shit jobs for low pay with a smile on their face. They are ASSETS.

Click to expand...

I'm not a nativist, I'm not opposed to all immigration, but you seem to be suggesting that the U.S. should welcome all who want to come here. Is that what you are suggesting? That we should have no restrictions on immigration at all? If not, then what restrictions do you think we should be allowed to impose? If so, then is it only the U.S. that should open its borders? Because I really can't see the entire world adopting that policy.

Amadan said:

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty is not written into our laws. Yes, it's an ideal we admire, but that doesn't mean it's a realistic policy we can maintain for all time.



Of course not. That doesn't answer the question - why is he entitled to move here?



I'm not a nativist, I'm not opposed to all immigration, but you seem to be suggesting that the U.S. should welcome all who want to come here. Is that what you are suggesting? That we should have no restrictions on immigration at all? If not, then what restrictions do you think we should be allowed to impose? If so, then is it only the U.S. that should open its borders? Because I really can't see the entire world adopting that policy.

Click to expand...

Is the US really so full of people that only the excessively rich, or those with specifically desired skills should be 'entitled' to immigrate into the country?

I'm not advocating an open-border policy, but the path to immigration should be available to anyone who wants to put in some effort, without the requirements or wait being completely unreasonable to the point of being impossible for most people.

Still, maybe these changes will mean we can deport Ted Cruz?

I would like to see a reasonable path to coming to American legally.

Yes, it should be a path. And yes, there should be restrictions. But it should be possible.

My own personal opinions on what the path should be or what the restrictions should entail are probably not relevant, here, but I wouldn't mind seeing restrictions such as

- must not have a serious criminal history (parking tickets are okay)
- A "probationary" period during which time committing certain (most) criminal offenses result in their losing their permission to be here.
- financial protections such as requiring new immigrants to pay taxes (no tax refunds or earned income credit or the like) and contribute to our social safety net without receiving any sort of government assistance for their first two years of their probationary period (in the case of children, those who adopt them could be required to put a certain amount of money into social programs.)
- I feel there should be a certain leeway to bar - at least temporarily - those even suspected of having terrorist/organized crime ties.
- the standard requirement of understanding American customs and laws at least at the level that our own high school students do. (That's a low bar.)

In addition to others. If the bar was set much higher than I would like, fine - but I'd like to see new categories of people allowed into the country, such as
- children whom Americans are willing to adopt and take full responsibility for
- Adults who show a willingness and ability to immediately start a small business (providing they do so.)
- Those hired by Americans for wages and compensation equivalent to what an American would have to be paid, so long as the American can show that no other Americans wanted the job and for as long as the immigrant is employed.

Just a few of my personal thoughts. Like I said, not really relevant, IMO.

My bar would be somewhat higher than yours, but those restrictions seem mostly reasonable to me. I'd impose very tight criteria on employers, though - the H1B program has been a farce.

My first thought on getting someone into the country was to hire them, complete with a healthcare plan, room and board, and benefits.

No go.

The following won't earn me many friends, nor will it be taken well, but this is the 'thought' from fly-over country. The general consensus on the subject from my friends and acquaintances:

We did amnesty in 1986. It was supposed to be a one-time fix, guaranteed to straighten everything out. We were promised that the border would be monitored, illegals slipping across would be stopped, and the laws would be changed to make it a reasonable and rational process.

A little money was tossed at the border, promises were made and soon forgotten, a few more half-hearted efforts were made over the years, and nothing really got accomplished as our congress critters became distracted by the next big 'shiny'. Whatever money that had been allocated soon became shuffled somewhere else. The government agencies that handled immigration kept doing whatever it is that they do, (obfuscate and obstruct, mostly), collecting their pay and passing the paperwork along. People trying to do things legally, found themselves paying thousands of dollars for this and that, and if one single form was forgotten--they had to start over from the beginning and pay again. The behemoth that is immigration law, and it's supporting cast, keep rolling along without any real desire to improve. Why should they? As long as they get paid a salary, they really don't have any incentive to change. There isn't an incentive for government agencies to improve services, as they are guaranteed an increase in allocation every year. To demand that they show improvements in service, or reward individuals for initiative, is not done. Not if it might endanger the behemoth by lessening it's power or money.

Administrations come and go, things that were enacted into law are supported or left to wither, according to the next administration's views on the subject. We're constantly promised that a new tax will only last for a certain length of time, then another reason to keep collecting that tax is found. Rarely do they go away. For instance, the federal excise tax that we once payed for long distance service. It ended in 2006. (Since it was established to pay for the Spanish-American war in 1898, I can only assume that we finally paid that sucker off!)

Why am I yammering on about broken promises and politics? Because it's an epidemic. As is deceit, unintended consequences, and the legendary resistance to change, proven over and over again by those that are supposed to serve us. The attention deficit disorder of our government has grown to the point that people are more worried about what points a political party can gain, rather than what is best for America as a whole. A third of the country can sway political thought, while the other two thirds do their best to swerve around the new obstacles, or slowly simmer in resentment.

The reason that the R's haven't been able to get anything done is that their constituents get on the phone and blast them whenever they start making conciliatory moves. There's one thing that they want first, before anything else happens. A freakin' fence, a moat, a twenty foot concrete barrier, a grand canyon of a ditch, proof. Proof that we won't have to do this again, and again, and again. Proof that someone really means what they say, and is willing to follow through. Actual reform of the immigration laws, guided by those that have had to follow them, not those that have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. No more big, splashy commissions that meet for a couple of days, turn in suggestions, and are never heard from again. Real, actual, visible progress for once. Then, and only then, will the resentment recede and the phones stop ringing.

Quite aside from the other arguments, until the actual plan is revealed, we won't know whether Obama overreached or not. The courts have historically ruled that the Executive Branch has discretion in prioritizing how the laws are enforced. I can't find the article now, but there was an article a few months ago that listed what Obama could and couldn't do through executive orders on immigration. There was quite a lot he can do without violating the existing law.

ShaunHorton said:

I'm not advocating an open-border policy, but the path to immigration should be available to anyone who wants to put in some effort, without the requirements or wait being completely unreasonable to the point of being impossible for most people.

Click to expand...

I agree with the sense of this. The path to *citizenship* needs needs to be streamlined and simplified. And the corridors need to be widened significantly imo. The number of immigrants granted citizenship/permanent residency per year is around 1 million, I think. 5 million would be a better number imo.

At the same time, borders do matter. And people crossing them illegally shouldn't get a free pass. They certainly shouldn't jump ahead in line. Doesn't mean they should be automatically deported, either. There are things in between. Like temporary permits to stay (with strings attached, to be sure).

The whole, "They're criminals by entering illegally and thus should be booted immediately" argument isn't helpful. And it's very much like hitting the same intolerant note again and again. (And honestly, a pretty "stock" argument from many on the right.)

Many undocumented folks enter this country illegally because they are attempting to flee harsh conditions: e.g. cartel violence, extreme poverty, etc. It's been said before on this thread and others, and largely ignored by the same people who keep repeating themselves. I rarely see it even addressed--more just swept aside in lieu of shouting the same thing over and over again. "They broke the law to get here, so they're criminals." (I'd type it 150 more times, but I'm hoping I make my point without having to go that far.)

It would be nice to actually see a conversation evolve beyond this. It either shows a lack of initiative to research the many dimensions of this issue, or, a simple disregard of the importance of human rights.

Unless you are familiar with the immigration system here in the U.S., I find it difficult to criticize those for whom it has failed. Lawyer and assistance scams notwithstanding.

This is an issue where there is never going to be a consensus of opinion. Whatever Obama says/does, and however it all flows downhill, there are going to be those who are unhappy with the result.

We'll all just have to live with it, whatever "it" turns out to be.

MM
backs slowly out of the room

Everyone here knows that the majority of illegal immigrants were granted permissions and just overstayed their tourist visas, right? Only the extremely poor or extremely desperate cross the border illegally.