Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[Rich Conway]

And, by the way, a path to citizenship exists right now.

http://www.us-immigration.com/us-citizenship-and-naturalization-application.jsp?lang=en

Why are you playing games here? The term "Path to Citizenship", in this context, refers to legal recognition for illegal immigrants already in this country and a means for them to achieve citizenship. You know this.

Over you over again, you say there needs to be a path to citizenship. Yet, when provided with irrefutable proof that such a path exists, you accuse others of playing games. What you really mean is that you don't like the existing path to citizenship, and you want it changed. That's the definition of playing word games, when you ask for one thing but mean another.

Except that I didn't create the modern meaning of the term. It's been in usage for years now. These days when you hear anyone speak of a path to citizenship, you can assume they're talking about illegals.

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

 

[Sarnoff]

The above article is part of the proof that I have been arguing for quite some time, which is borne out by the evidence:

1. Illegal immigrants commit less crimes than do American citizens.

2. Illegal immigrants work harder than do American citizens.

3. Illegal immigrants receive less funds from the government than do American citizens.

4. Illegal immigrants on average, are less of a drain on our resources than American citizens.

These are the facts. Just about everything that most people suppose about illegals is wrong. They are being wrongfully scapegoated for our economic problems, which is unfortunate.

I could poke holes in your post just above, re: crime statistics, all day long, but for now I'll ask what proof you posted regarding your assertions 2, 3, and 4 above?

You repeatedly make such assertions as "facts", but I have yet to see you post any actual proof.

I have provided evidence in the past. If I have time I will do so again.But I doubt it will matter with you. Almost all of my evidence is based on studies conducted by Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, and the University of Arizona, all of them sympathetic to my POV. I'm sure you'll dismiss them all anyway, just as you are eager to dismiss the article on crime.

I've seen you provide links twice. Both times, the actual studies you linked had zero proof of what you claimed. Once, the study actually showed the exact opposite of what you claimed.

 

[CBusAlex]

Mr. Conway likes to talk about incentives a lot. Does he realize that a more open immigration policy, where anyone not a threat to public health was allowed in, would remove one of the biggest incentives for people to cross the border illegally? (Ending the war on drugs would remove the next biggest incentive, but since this is the FFA I assume we're all in favor of that already.)

Securing the border against the remaining handful of criminals and, uh, terrorists(?) would probably be a lot easier and cheaper than trying to secure it against millions of people who only want a better life for themselves and their children.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

The above article is part of the proof that I have been arguing for quite some time, which is borne out by the evidence:

1. Illegal immigrants commit less crimes than do American citizens.

2. Illegal immigrants work harder than do American citizens.

3. Illegal immigrants receive less funds from the government than do American citizens.

4. Illegal immigrants on average, are less of a drain on our resources than American citizens.

These are the facts. Just about everything that most people suppose about illegals is wrong. They are being wrongfully scapegoated for our economic problems, which is unfortunate.

I could poke holes in your post just above, re: crime statistics, all day long, but for now I'll ask what proof you posted regarding your assertions 2, 3, and 4 above?

You repeatedly make such assertions as "facts", but I have yet to see you post any actual proof.

I have provided evidence in the past. If I have time I will do so again.But I doubt it will matter with you. Almost all of my evidence is based on studies conducted by Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, and the University of Arizona, all of them sympathetic to my POV. I'm sure you'll dismiss them all anyway, just as you are eager to dismiss the article on crime.

I've seen you provide links twice. Both times, the actual studies you linked had zero proof of what you claimed. Once, the study actually showed the exact opposite of what you claimed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The above article is part of the proof that I have been arguing for quite some time, which is borne out by the evidence:

1. Illegal immigrants commit less crimes than do American citizens.

2. Illegal immigrants work harder than do American citizens.

3. Illegal immigrants receive less funds from the government than do American citizens.

4. Illegal immigrants on average, are less of a drain on our resources than American citizens.

These are the facts. Just about everything that most people suppose about illegals is wrong. They are being wrongfully scapegoated for our economic problems, which is unfortunate.

What you are talking about is the past tense version of illegal immigration, which was a trickle compare to this. Using that standard, your argument is sound.

When you extrapolate your theories by 1000 x more people in a short period of time, which is what is happening right now, you get mass chaos. This is madness. Its sort of like me saying it is totally o.k to drink a few beers, which it is. I might get a little tipsy, but I will be fine and might even be a little more insightful and funny. It would not be o.k. for me to drink 100 beers though...I would probably end up killing myself and few others around me.

Well at least you're willing to admit that the argument was sound in the past- I suppose that's an achievement of sorts.

But when you talk about what is creating this current turmoil, it's several thousand children. Perhaps 150,000 all told. That's not a small number, but in a nation of 300 million it's hardly the catastrophe that you paint it either.

I think you're crazy - 150,000 children abandoned at our doorstep? And we're not sending them back but just encouraging more?

This is like a goalie who is expected to allow 1 goal per game is instead suddenly allowing 15. It's a total catastrophe.

It's a catastrophe for them, for us, the towns and cities where these children are sent, our agents, everyone.

Why do you hate compassionate conservative George W Bush and the GOP Congress who put the law in place that requires we hold these children for a long time while they go through a long procedural process before some are sent back?

They are not mutually exclusive, as you know. And let's leave hate out of this, there's enough of that to go around.

 

[Rich Conway]

With regard to the article HT just posted and the concerns it raises, President Obama has just asked Congress to grant 3.9 billion to deal with these immediate problems, in a manner of his choosing. Congress has refused the request, because it disagrees with the manner in which Obama would deal with the problems.

Italics added to fix your post.

I haven't heard his specific plans or their specific objections; only that he needed the money to deal with the public health concerns that HT referenced. What are the Republicans objecting to?

Neither side has released much in the way of specifics. I figure it's safe to say that the GOP doesn't trust Obama with funds granted carte blanche, and that the money would be used in such a way that it will discourage future crossings rather than encourage more. I can't blame them for that, given the history on this issue.

 

[Rich Conway]

Mr. Conway likes to talk about incentives a lot. Does he realize that a more open immigration policy, where anyone not a threat to public health was allowed in, would remove one of the biggest incentives for people to cross the border illegally? (Ending the war on drugs would remove the next biggest incentive, but since this is the FFA I assume we're all in favor of that already.)

Securing the border against the remaining handful of criminals and, uh, terrorists(?) would probably be a lot easier and cheaper than trying to secure it against millions of people who only want a better life for themselves and their children.

Yes, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would remove the incentive to cross illegally. Of course, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would greatly increase the incentive to cross the border.

If we make it legal to steal, it would greatly increase the incentive to steal. If we make it legal to speed, it would greatly increase the incentive to speed.

 

[CBusAlex]

Yes, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would remove the incentive to cross illegally. Of course, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would greatly increase the incentive to cross the border.

If we make it legal to steal, it would greatly increase the incentive to steal. If we make it legal to speed, it would greatly increase the incentive to speed.

I skimmed a lot of this thread, but I didn't get the sense that you were against immigration in general. Am I wrong on that? I'm not sure this analogy makes much sense unless you believe that foreigners coming to America is a bad thing in and of itself, the way stealing and speeding are.

 

[jonessed]

With regard to the article HT just posted and the concerns it raises, President Obama has just asked Congress to grant 3.9 billion to deal with these immediate problems, in a manner of his choosing. Congress has refused the request, because it disagrees with the manner in which Obama would deal with the problems.

Italics added to fix your post.

I haven't heard his specific plans or their specific objections; only that he needed the money to deal with the public health concerns that HT referenced. What are the Republicans objecting to?

The same things you see here. The money being used to integrate people into the US as opposed to the money being used to deport them.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Yes, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would remove the incentive to cross illegally. Of course, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would greatly increase the incentive to cross the border.

If we make it legal to steal, it would greatly increase the incentive to steal. If we make it legal to speed, it would greatly increase the incentive to speed.

I skimmed a lot of this thread, but I didn't get the sense that you were against immigration in general. Am I wrong on that? I'm not sure this analogy makes much sense unless you believe that foreigners coming to America is a bad thing in and of itself, the way stealing and speeding are.

Most people who are against illegal immigration are not opposed to legal immigraton. They are, however, in favor of a reasonable policy, including limits on how many people come over a specific period of time. I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration. IIRC the U.S. actually allows the most legal immigrants of any country already. I didn't realize there were other people who held Tim's view that unlimited immigration should be our policy.

 

[Rich Conway]

Yes, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would remove the incentive to cross illegally. Of course, if we make it legal for anyone to cross the border, it would greatly increase the incentive to cross the border.

If we make it legal to steal, it would greatly increase the incentive to steal. If we make it legal to speed, it would greatly increase the incentive to speed.

I skimmed a lot of this thread, but I didn't get the sense that you were against immigration in general. Am I wrong on that? I'm not sure this analogy makes much sense unless you believe that foreigners coming to America is a bad thing in and of itself, the way stealing and speeding are.

I'm not generally against immigration, no. I do, however, believe that we can't simply throw open the doors and welcome all comers without serious economic repercussions.

 

[CBusAlex]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

That same country also once had legalized slavery. How does that apply to the current world? Or are you willing to bring both back?

 

[Rich Conway]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

 

[sho nuff]

The above article is part of the proof that I have been arguing for quite some time, which is borne out by the evidence:

1. Illegal immigrants commit less crimes than do American citizens.

2. Illegal immigrants work harder than do American citizens.

3. Illegal immigrants receive less funds from the government than do American citizens.

4. Illegal immigrants on average, are less of a drain on our resources than American citizens.

These are the facts. Just about everything that most people suppose about illegals is wrong. They are being wrongfully scapegoated for our economic problems, which is unfortunate.

What you are talking about is the past tense version of illegal immigration, which was a trickle compare to this. Using that standard, your argument is sound.

When you extrapolate your theories by 1000 x more people in a short period of time, which is what is happening right now, you get mass chaos. This is madness. Its sort of like me saying it is totally o.k to drink a few beers, which it is. I might get a little tipsy, but I will be fine and might even be a little more insightful and funny. It would not be o.k. for me to drink 100 beers though...I would probably end up killing myself and few others around me.

Well at least you're willing to admit that the argument was sound in the past- I suppose that's an achievement of sorts.

But when you talk about what is creating this current turmoil, it's several thousand children. Perhaps 150,000 all told. That's not a small number, but in a nation of 300 million it's hardly the catastrophe that you paint it either.

I think you're crazy - 150,000 children abandoned at our doorstep? And we're not sending them back but just encouraging more?

This is like a goalie who is expected to allow 1 goal per game is instead suddenly allowing 15. It's a total catastrophe.

It's a catastrophe for them, for us, the towns and cities where these children are sent, our agents, everyone.

Why do you hate compassionate conservative George W Bush and the GOP Congress who put the law in place that requires we hold these children for a long time while they go through a long procedural process before some are sent back?

You mean the law that Feinstein helped write...Berman sponsored, and passed when it was not a GOP congress but when Democrats controlled the House? While the Senate that was pretty much even the entire 2 last years of Bush's term?

The law being talked about over and over was signed at the end of 2008. You may want to read up on where Congress was and who helped write the law and who sponsored it before just blaming the GOP.

BTW...it had bipartisan support as it is.

 

[Courtjester]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

That same country also once had legalized slavery. How does that apply to the current world? Or are you willing to bring both back?

And don't forget that whole allowing those pesky women to vote idea..

 

[timschochet]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

I like the cut of your jib!

 

[timschochet]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Except that the immigrants huddled in the cities, where the resources were just as limited as they are now. And the exact same complaints were made then.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Except that the immigrants huddled in the cities, where the resources were just as limited as they are now. And the exact same complaints were made then.

Ever heard of the Homestead Act? They weren't all huddles in cities.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Except that the immigrants huddled in the cities, where the resources were just as limited as they are now. And the exact same complaints were made then.

Ever heard of the Homestead Act? They weren't all huddles in cities.

The bulk of the immigrants, especially at the turn of the 19th-20th century, huddled in the cities.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Homesteading is still available in Alaska. They can go there if they want.

 

[jonessed]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Except that the immigrants huddled in the cities, where the resources were just as limited as they are now. And the exact same complaints were made then.

Ever heard of the Homestead Act? They weren't all huddles in cities.

The Economist had a good article on the economic benefits of immigration a few weeks ago.

The benefit is inversely proportional to how robust the social services and security net is. America benefits more from immigration than Europe. The most socialized countries in Europe actually sees their overall quality of life (measured economically) drop for each immigrant they take in.

Basically, you can have one on not the other. If you want bigger safety nets you have to have more stringent immigration rules. If you want more immigration the safety net has to give.

This is with normal immigration though. It was done assuming the immigrants were coming to work. Obviously there is no net benefit to simply having kids immigrate sans parents. That makes no sense from an economic viewpoint.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Except that the immigrants huddled in the cities, where the resources were just as limited as they are now. And the exact same complaints were made then.

Ever heard of the Homestead Act? They weren't all huddles in cities.

The bulk of the immigrants, especially at the turn of the 19th-20th century, huddled in the cities.

Many immigrants especially from Germany headed west to farm. In 1870 in the Pennsylvania area 1/3 of the farmers were German immigrants. You make it seem like the immigrants that arrived in that time period did nothing but be huddled in cities. That isn't true. They worked and made lives for themselves and families.

 

[CBusAlex]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

 

[Rich Conway]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

 

[Rich Conway]

I don't know of any country in the world that allows unlimited immigration.

The most exceptional nation on earth did, for nearly a century.

At the time, that nation also had "unlimited", untapped natural resources and "unlimited", unused land (assuming we ignore the whole "those resources and lands kind of belonged to native Americans" thing). That is no longer the case.

Except that the immigrants huddled in the cities, where the resources were just as limited as they are now. And the exact same complaints were made then.

That nation also had virtually no social safety net or work rules such as minimum wage. The fact is, that was a different nation entirely, for better or worse, and the economic realities are different now.

 

[jonessed]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

They can if they entered the country while under eighteen.Adults that enter the country illegally would have to go back to their country of origin and apply for the green card legally.

 

[HellToupee]

Attention : Tim to the Malaysian Airlines thread por favor

 

[tdoss]

I too don't think anything illegal should be considered illegal.

 

[Rich Conway]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/13/opinion/gergen-katz-border-crisis-safe-zones/index.html

The article proposes UN maintained "safe zones" in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. This seems to me like a better solution. It gives the kids a chance at escaping the violence, but avoids putting the burden entirely on the US, and doesn't send the message that the US border is simply a turnstile.

 

[Christo]

How about we dig them a tunnel to Canada?

 

[timschochet]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/13/opinion/gergen-katz-border-crisis-safe-zones/index.html

The article proposes UN maintained "safe zones" in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. This seems to me like a better solution. It gives the kids a chance at escaping the violence, but avoids putting the burden entirely on the US, and doesn't send the message that the US border is simply a turnstile.

Interesting. At least it attempts to solve the problem at its root.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a thoughtful question for everyone, regardless of how you feel about illegal immigrants: What can or should the US do to improve economic conditions in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, etc.? It should be obvious that it is not in our best interests if these countries remain destitute and rife with gang violence. Refugees at our borders may end up only one concern among many others.

But what should we do? Over the years we have tried increased trade, but the profits in those countries always seem to go to the corrupt few and the poverty level stays the same or gets worse. We have tried to give them money, lots of it, with few tangible results. We have tried to fight the drug trade in order to reduce gang violence, and that has been a miserable failure. Any suggestions?

 

[Politician Spock]

Here is a thoughtful question for everyone, regardless of how you feel about illegal immigrants: What can or should the US do to improve economic conditions in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, etc.? It should be obvious that it is not in our best interests if these countries remain destitute and rife with gang violence. Refugees at our borders may end up only one concern among many others.

But what should we do? Over the years we have tried increased trade, but the profits in those countries always seem to go to the corrupt few and the poverty level stays the same or gets worse. We have tried to give them money, lots of it, with few tangible results. We have tried to fight the drug trade in order to reduce gang violence, and that has been a miserable failure. Any suggestions?

What we did to Iraq worked out well.

 

[Rich Conway]

Here is a thoughtful question for everyone, regardless of how you feel about illegal immigrants: What can or should the US do to improve economic conditions in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, etc.? It should be obvious that it is not in our best interests if these countries remain destitute and rife with gang violence. Refugees at our borders may end up only one concern among many others.

But what should we do? Over the years we have tried increased trade, but the profits in those countries always seem to go to the corrupt few and the poverty level stays the same or gets worse. We have tried to give them money, lots of it, with few tangible results. We have tried to fight the drug trade in order to reduce gang violence, and that has been a miserable failure. Any suggestions?

End the war on drugs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is a thoughtful question for everyone, regardless of how you feel about illegal immigrants: What can or should the US do to improve economic conditions in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, etc.? It should be obvious that it is not in our best interests if these countries remain destitute and rife with gang violence. Refugees at our borders may end up only one concern among many others.

But what should we do? Over the years we have tried increased trade, but the profits in those countries always seem to go to the corrupt few and the poverty level stays the same or gets worse. We have tried to give them money, lots of it, with few tangible results. We have tried to fight the drug trade in order to reduce gang violence, and that has been a miserable failure. Any suggestions?

Support democracy in all of Central America to the hilt, that means free elections, freedom of speech, human rights, civil rights and economic freedom. That is what we can do.

A lot of people are fleeing political oppression and economic depression is very much tied to political control by oligarchs.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with Rich that we need to end the war on drugs. Not sure what the effects will be on those countries though. Presumably we will still be buying their product, which will leave the drug lords in charge.

Saints, we do try to support democracy. But the problem is that whenever it happens, the result is a Marxist government that is radically anti-American- the Sandinistas, for instance, or Hugo Chavez.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree with Rich that we need to end the war on drugs. Not sure what the effects will be on those countries though. Presumably we will still be buying their product, which will leave the drug lords in charge.

Saints, we do try to support democracy. But the problem is that whenever it happens, the result is a Marxist government that is radically anti-American- the Sandinistas, for instance, or Hugo Chavez.

That's quite inaccurate. The Honduran situation was the opposite, there was a Chavezista president who tried to rip up the constitution and the Honduran Congress impeached him. We bizarrely backed the wrong horse and thankfully lost.

 

[Shirtless]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

 

[timschochet]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

There's more to this as well. The honest truth is that most people who become illegal immigrants have NO shot of coming to this country legally. They are not in the right social class; they don't have the right connections. That's why this whole "why can't they wait in line like everyone else?" is so bogus. There is no line.

 

[uconnalum]

A Jewish non-profit runs Chatlin House they are seeking a modification of an elderly care shelter with 16 beds to a 32 bed residential use shelter to provide housing to UAC. The organization and some County Commissioners are calling it a Humanitarian issue and the shelter will be funded by the US Gov. I have told my county commissioners to vote against this because what happens when they transition out. They then become a taxpayer issue and our county cannot afford to provide social services, educational costs, and medical costs for 32 additional people per month up to 384 children per year. It would tax our system. I asked the Jewish Center heads at an open house if this is a humanitarian issue why do you not place them with the Jewish community, enroll them in private schools, and pay for there medical care. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to care, educate and provide social services for these kids after there time is up in the shelter. They can easily be put on a plane and sent back. She said Jewish families have children of there own to look after.

· The Unaccompanied Children (UAC) Program at Chatlin House is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The mission of the program is to provide a safe, welcoming and nurturing environment for the physical and mental well-being of the children until they are timely reunited with their parents or sponsors.

· The program shall provide a safe shelter, home-like environment for male children ages 8 up to 18. The program will have 24 hour staffing, 7 days a week. There will be a minimum of 1 staff person for every 6 children, with a maximum of 32 children. The children are expected to reside in the shelter for an average of 30-45 days.

 

[Christo]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

There's more to this as well. The honest truth is that most people who become illegal immigrants have NO shot of coming to this country legally. They are not in the right social class; they don't have the right connections. That's why this whole "why can't they wait in line like everyone else?" is so bogus. There is no line.

Of course there's a line. The fact that it doesn't move as quickly as a McDonald's drive-thru is not a reason to claim otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

There's more to this as well. The honest truth is that most people who become illegal immigrants have NO shot of coming to this country legally. They are not in the right social class; they don't have the right connections. That's why this whole "why can't they wait in line like everyone else?" is so bogus. There is no line.

Of course there's a line. The fact that it doesn't move as quickly as a McDonald's drive-thru is not a reason to claim otherwise.

OK there's a line. But most of these people are never allowed to stand in it.

 

[timschochet]

A Jewish non-profit runs Chatlin House they are seeking a modification of an elderly care shelter with 16 beds to a 32 bed residential use shelter to provide housing to UAC. The organization and some County Commissioners are calling it a Humanitarian issue and the shelter will be funded by the US Gov. I have told my county commissioners to vote against this because what happens when they transition out. They then become a taxpayer issue and our county cannot afford to provide social services, educational costs, and medical costs for 32 additional people per month up to 384 children per year. It would tax our system. I asked the Jewish Center heads at an open house if this is a humanitarian issue why do you not place them with the Jewish community, enroll them in private schools, and pay for there medical care. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to care, educate and provide social services for these kids after there time is up in the shelter. They can easily be put on a plane and sent back. She said Jewish families have children of there own to look after.

· The Unaccompanied Children (UAC) Program at Chatlin House is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The mission of the program is to provide a safe, welcoming and nurturing environment for the physical and mental well-being of the children until they are timely reunited with their parents or sponsors.

· The program shall provide a safe shelter, home-like environment for male children ages 8 up to 18. The program will have 24 hour staffing, 7 days a week. There will be a minimum of 1 staff person for every 6 children, with a maximum of 32 children. The children are expected to reside in the shelter for an average of 30-45 days.

I hope they vote for it.

 

[Christo]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

There's more to this as well. The honest truth is that most people who become illegal immigrants have NO shot of coming to this country legally. They are not in the right social class; they don't have the right connections. That's why this whole "why can't they wait in line like everyone else?" is so bogus. There is no line.

Of course there's a line. The fact that it doesn't move as quickly as a McDonald's drive-thru is not a reason to claim otherwise.

OK there's a line. But most of these people are never allowed to stand in it.

Now we've reached the point where I'm requiring you to show your work. This happens a lot with you. You make statements of fact that turn out to be untrue and you then claim that they were just an opinion based upon nothing other than speculation.

 

[timschochet]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

 

[Christo]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

Just what I thought.

 

[jonessed]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

Or if the person was under 18 when they entered.

 

[jonessed]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

Weak .

 

[timschochet]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

Just what I thought.

The facts are out there dude. But if you think I'm going to waste my Saturday night looking for them on the Internet (I got them from books and articles) then you have another thing coming. You're welcome to do the work if you like.