Immigration Law Changes

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Immigration Law Changes

Postby KeithE » Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:33 am

Personally I’d say we should be far more lenient in letting people in. Yet there needs to be a checkpoint (with searches for drugs/guns/other bad stuff) /background checks for past criminality/ registration (indicating their plans {or lack thereof} with signature that says they will obey the law else they are subject to possible deportation). I would also support a variable limit of number accepted but at much higher rates that we allow today. I say variable since it will should slide with employment needs in our country (i.e if we had a robust infrastructure program, that limit should be a large number). This is the way we grow as a country numerically, economically and as a participant in creating wellness across the world. That would make America Greater than it ever has been. Hats could say Make America Better (MAB)

Dreamers, DACA recipients, TPSers should be grandfathered in. Almost all are contributing members of our society. Criminals among those are subject to our normal justice system.

I'm sure much more needs to be stated in a truly “comprehensive plan” and I am subject to a change of mind from that stated above.

Have at it. I’m gong to a Kairos meeting.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:43 pm

I think I am in general agreement with what you state, Keith, barring misunderstanding what you have stated and assuming we would have disagreements on some details. I think we have a immigration system and laws that need fixing, and that neither Democrats nor Republicans really want to do the work necessary, but would rather want to make points with their supporters. A "comprehensive" fix will require compromise on both sides.

I agree with you on people who are already here and are contributing members of society. Yes, they did come here illegally (not according to our immigration laws), but they are not the problem. I think what the "average Joe" (and the "average Jane") wants is a system that will keep out criminals and terrorists and that most of them (us) are not really in a frenzy to send back otherwise law-abiding working people who are already here. I know this can and does seem unfair to those immigrants who came here legally, but sometimes you just have to decide you can't fix everything in the past and then do what you can for what is best in the future.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:24 am

Keith, here is one that is more specific.
Under the 14th Amendment any child born in the United States or its territories automatically is an American citizen.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The need for this amendment rose of out slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Some say this law is outdated for the United States in present times. I haven't given it a lot of study, but I know it is involved in the problem of legally and compassionately dealing with illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:49 pm

Birthright citizenship is as constitutional as the right to bear arms. That's not a part of the constitution you hear much about, but there it is.

The problem is that these discussions focus on a crisis that is a figment of the imagination. The US has a strong set of immigration laws and national security practices related to who gets across its borders and they were working just fine. Differences in the number of people attempting to come across illegally, especially from Mexico related to situation that occur in countries south of the border, not in US politics. You can google information and put together a whole folder full of information that shows exactly how effective United States border security was during the Obama administration. The rhetoric from Trump about shutting down all immigration of any kind until we could "figure out what the **** was going on" was just rhetoric, not based on fact or on even any knowledge of what was happening at the border. He and his base are blithely ignorant of the facts, they are just upset because the number of Latinos in the US is on the rise and they don't like it because they're not white. Period.

There was a time when the number of people sneaking into the US illegally was much higher, enforcement was lax and drug lords took advantage of the lack of security to move their goods. We call that period of time "the Bush administration." It is an example of what happens when you cut the budget to give tax breaks to billionaires. And it wasn't just the Southern border. During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US. The figures you can find show the increased drug traffic and the stream of illegals who came in hit the 12 million mark. The Obama administration pretty much cleaned up the mess and restored order, at least, that's what the evidence points to. The whole issue of immigration, the wall and border security is a Trump talking point that he used to keep the mindless occupied and to keep them from getting bored at rallies where he went on and on and on...……….

That being said, US immigration laws can be insensitive and pernicious. We're willing to keep an open door and unlimited quotas for Europeans, and our attitude toward white Eastern Europeans has warmed up as they have streamed into the US in larger numbers than ever since the iron curtain came down. We're also willing to take in a lot of South Asians, particularly Indians, if they have money to invest. Latinos, not so much. And yet they, and the refugees from Middle Eastern countries like Syria, particularly persecuted minorities like Christians, have a much more difficult path to get in legally than others do.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:10 am

Sandy wrote:Birthright citizenship is as constitutional as the right to bear arms.
As was prohibition (until it wasn't, of course).
Sandy wrote:The problem is that these discussions focus on a crisis that is a figment of the imagination.
According to the American Immigration Council, "5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member." While that number is an estimate based on census date, I don't think it is a figment of the imagination.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:26 am

Sandy wrote:We call that period of time "the Bush administration."...During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US.
According to this site, the story is a little more complicated than that.
First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona. Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale, Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April 1999.

Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi on B-2 tourist visa from Malaysia.

In January 2000, obtained 10-year, multiple entry tourist visa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Entered the U.S. in May 2000, applied September for change of status to student.

Entered the U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have had "suspicious indicators."

[Data compiled from various news sources and checked where possible against official sources including the Dec. 2002 Senate report "Joint inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (Released in July 2003) and the Feb. 2004 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.]
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:01 am

Rvaughn wrote:According to the American Immigration Council, "5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member." While that number is an estimate based on census date, I don't think it is a figment of the imagination.


That's a cumulative total and includes all of those who are in this country illegally. Trump is claiming that this is still a "crisis." For some who naively think that a border barrier and enforcement can stop all illegal crossing, perhaps. But the southern border is not the only source of the problem.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:38 am

Sandy wrote:That's a cumulative total and includes all of those who are in this country illegally. Trump is claiming that this is still a "crisis." For some who naively think that a border barrier and enforcement can stop all illegal crossing, perhaps. But the southern border is not the only source of the problem.
Of course it is a cumulative total (and of course I didn't say anything about Trump or a wall). I am responding to Keith's original post about what kind of changes we might need to make. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between birthright citizenship and some things in our immigration laws. And it will be a crisis to the child who is a citizen by birthright if ICE says they need to send the parents back where they came from. I raised this point to wonder what changes could bring this disconnect more in line together, maintaining good immigration law while showing concern for these families. Or do we need to tweak birthright citizenship some way to help address this? Perhaps you have no ideas about that, but railing against Trump doesn't really address the question I'm asking.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:12 am

It is humorous to me that Trump and his allies would like to end birthright citizenship. He has made a fortune marketing hotel space to rich Chinese who come to this country, stay in a Trump hotel, have a baby in an American hospital, then carry their little dual citizenship baby back to China but always have an anchor in the US.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Feb 04, 2019 11:19 am

Couldn't find the article on Chinese birth tourism, but there is a more recent one on Russian birth tourism.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:16 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:That's a cumulative total and includes all of those who are in this country illegally. Trump is claiming that this is still a "crisis." For some who naively think that a border barrier and enforcement can stop all illegal crossing, perhaps. But the southern border is not the only source of the problem.
Of course it is a cumulative total (and of course I didn't say anything about Trump or a wall). I am responding to Keith's original post about what kind of changes we might need to make. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between birthright citizenship and some things in our immigration laws. And it will be a crisis to the child who is a citizen by birthright if ICE says they need to send the parents back where they came from. I raised this point to wonder what changes could bring this disconnect more in line together, maintaining good immigration law while showing concern for these families. Or do we need to tweak birthright citizenship some way to help address this? Perhaps you have no ideas about that, but railing against Trump doesn't really address the question I'm asking.


How much of a problem is it that there are 5.9 million parents in the country "illegally" though connected to their children because of birthright citizenship? Unemployment and job growth haven't been a problem for almost a decade now. These are, for the most part, people who are working and contributing to the growth of the economy. They do not appear to be causing problems. I don't see why our government could not come up with a "pathway to citizenship" that would not involve deporting them to their country of origin. Most of them have been here for more than a decade. The idea that some kind of legal status and a pathway to citizenship is rewarding people who are breaking the law is not realistic at this point. I would guess that, if offered the opportunity, most of these people would re-locate and be willing to take jobs that few others find appealing if that were a condition of staying here.

Perhaps one of the ways of compensating for this would be to deduct whatever cost there may be to taxpayers from any foreign aid the US provides their country of origin. For most of them, being here represents a new chance at life. Let them have it.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:37 pm

Sandy wrote:How much of a problem is it that there are 5.9 million parents in the country "illegally" though connected to their children because of birthright citizenship?
It is a big problem to every family who lives under this shadow.
Sandy wrote:I don't see why our government could not come up with a "pathway to citizenship" that would not involve deporting them to their country of origin.
Thanks. I think some kind of "pathway to citizenship" should be worked on as a solution, at least working on giving parents of U. S. minor citizens some kind of legal status that is not "illegal." My opinion is that is definitely the solution for those who are already here and are contributing members of our society. The possible downside of this is that it could encourage other people to come to the U.S. to have birthright citizens and become "legal" rather than choosing the "normal" route to legal citizenship.

It seems to me the "why" our government doesn't do it is because each side is more concerned with digging into their far-apart positions rather than working toward a (compromise) solution that would help the most while giving up the least.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Haruo » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:26 pm

Sandy wrote:Perhaps one of the ways of compensating for this would be to deduct whatever cost there may be to taxpayers from any foreign aid the US provides their country of origin. For most of them, being here represents a new chance at life. Let them have it.

If the aid is going to line the pockets and offshore accounts of the dictators (or even the elected, "democratic" leaders of those countries, that's a great idea. If the reason we have those people here is that their homelands are in utterly desperate need of financial assistance and our current aid is actually going to address human need there on a societal level instead of just the ruling cliques, then hardly any "way of compensating" could be worse. The United States government cannot imo be trusted to evaluate such things. And I'm not sure who can.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12659
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:58 pm

Rvaughn wrote:The possible downside of this is that it could encourage other people to come to the U.S. to have birthright citizens and become "legal" rather than choosing the "normal" route to legal citizenship.


I doubt if very many of those desperate enough to set out on what is mostly a trip by foot to get to the United States really see that there's much of a difference between the "normal" route to citizenship, or their attempt to get into the US and stay however they can to avoid what is a life of misery for most and certain death for some. There are provisions for those already here to bring family members but that benefits Europeans far more than it does Central Americans. It is also much more difficult for Central Americans to apply for admission under the terms of political asylum because the US government is on good terms with the governments of those countries for the most part, in spite of their corruption and dictatorial nature. Being able to come to the US out of a Banana Republic or even Mexico requires having the personal and physical resources necessary to make the trip and when it comes to some of those countries, most of those who are able to come are going to head out whether birthright citizenship is available or not.

The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby KeithE » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:21 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:We call that period of time "the Bush administration."...During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US.
According to this site, the story is a little more complicated than that.
First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona. Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale, Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April 1999.

Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi on B-2 tourist visa from Malaysia.

In January 2000, obtained 10-year, multiple entry tourist visa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Entered the U.S. in May 2000, applied September for change of status to student.

Entered the U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have had "suspicious indicators."

[Data compiled from various news sources and checked where possible against official sources including the Dec. 2002 Senate report "Joint inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (Released in July 2003) and the Feb. 2004 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.]


Interesting stuff, Rvaughn. It is very complicated. I’ve been aware of this for years (being a 9/11 skeptic). Your point is that many of the initial hijacker entries into the US was during the Clinton period to counter Sandy. You are right. Your implication is (I guess) one can’t blame Bush for 9/11. That would-be going too far given the Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” and other warnings prior to Sept 11, 2001. I could go on (and on and on...) about what I believe most likely happened (and who_all_was_Involved_in 9/11), but I’ll resist.

But if you are really interested in pursuing the travel timelines of these hijackers, recognize that most came from Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 highjackers came from Saudi Arabia). You can find out more background by reading Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World: An Insider's View. $4.49 for Kindle version. It is by J. Michael Springmann, a former US diplomat to Saudi Arabia who says he was pressured to sign visas (against his professional opinion especially after the bombing of the World Trade Center on Feb 26, 1993) of several of the hijackers by his superiors at the request of the CIA. Could be a case of CYA, but after reading it, I don't think so.

Senator Bob Graham’s book Intelligence Matters also discusses some of these hijackers living in the US (San Diego for two Saudi hijackers) and how Saudi’s were protected by GWB in the aftermath of 9/11.

More “official” details are in the 9/11 Commission’s book on Terrorist Travel. 9/11 and Terrorist Travel. Includes clear discussion of each hijacker and copies of mark-upped Visa applications, but hard to read. $0.99 for Kindle version.

More than you probably wanted to know or research (you probably just wanted to correct Sandy's assertion). So I’ll stop there.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:04 pm

9-11 happened on W's watch. Yes, some of them had been in the country before, and one for a while prior to the attack, but just about every memoir I've read on the subject says that the Bush administration's watch on immigration and border security wasn't paying attention and if they had been, they may have prevented the attack.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby KeithE » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:50 pm

Sandy wrote:9-11 happened on W's watch. Yes, some of them had been in the country before, and one for a while prior to the attack, but just about every memoir I've read on the subject says that the Bush administration's watch on immigration and border security wasn't paying attention and if they had been, they may have prevented the attack.

Your were technically wrong on the narrow subject of when the hijackers entered the US (most of the hijackers entered the US for the first time in the Clinton years) but clearly correct about who is to blame for 9/11 (even under the “official story ” fiction).

What “memoir” is your favorite?
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:37 am

Both of James Risen's works on the subject are well documented. I picked up The New Pearl Harbor right after it came out. State of War is also pretty good. And there's some pretty good background in Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby KeithE » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:47 am

Sandy wrote:9-11 happened on W's watch. Yes, some of them had been in the country before, and one for a while prior to the attack, but just about every memoir I've read on the subject says that the Bush administration's watch on immigration and border security wasn't paying attention and if they had been, they may have prevented the attack.


Keith asked: What “memoir” is your favorite?

Sandy wrote:Both of James Risen's works on the subject are well documented. I picked up The New Pearl Harbor right after it came out. State of War is also pretty good. And there's some pretty good background in Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.

The New Pearl Harbor was by David Ray Griffin and was eyepoppingly (if that be a word) good. Do you believe his story?- I do. I have both State of War and The Looming Tower but will need to rescan to see what they said about Bush admin “watch”. My fallible memory recalls Risen’s State of War as being critical of Bush but Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower was not critical of Bush’s “watch”; it was really well written/documented and mostly chronicled Al Qaeda’s rise (as I recall).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:25 pm

Oops, yes, was looking at the bookshelf at the time I wrote that. The New Pearl Harbor is very well documented. Do I believe his story? After reading Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9-11 I do.

Wright is much more of an expert on the background and history of radical Islam and after reading that, it becomes pretty clear that most Americans, including most conservative Evangelical Christians, are pretty clueless about all of that. I have to admit, I certainly was.

I wasn't really intending to read a "loaded" list about Bush administration conspiracy theories, but the evidence comes out like step by step solving of a mystery murder. Dick Cheney was, IMHO, the one who pushed and shoved all of that, I don't think Bush was ever really in control of anything related to national security, he just deferred to Cheney, and John Bolton.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:15 pm

Sandy wrote:The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
I think that is right, probably both the easiest and best for those who are here. Are you also saying just continue the same process for the future?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:21 pm

KeithE wrote:Interesting stuff, Rvaughn. It is very complicated. I’ve been aware of this for years (being a 9/11 skeptic). Your point is that many of the initial hijacker entries into the US was during the Clinton period to counter Sandy. You are right. Your implication is (I guess) one can’t blame Bush for 9/11.
No implication; just correction. Sandy spoke of "that period of time 'the Bush administration'" and "During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US." Some of them came during the George W. Bush administration and some did not. It is not correct to assign one thing happening in a certain period of time when it did not.

As far as blame, I was not looking to assign or remove blame from anyone. I would add that is also a lot more complicated than looking for one person to blame (or not blame).
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Sandy » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:32 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
I think that is right, probably both the easiest and best for those who are here. Are you also saying just continue the same process for the future?


Sure. From an economic standpoint the country can easily support it, especially since many of those here illegally from Mexico in particular are returning in larger numbers than they are entering. Changing that law is about as likely as repealing the electoral college.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9354
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby KeithE » Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:50 pm

Sandy wrote:
Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
I think that is right, probably both the easiest and best for those who are here. Are you also saying just continue the same process for the future?


Sure. From an economic standpoint the country can easily support it, especially since many of those here illegally from Mexico in particular are returning in larger numbers than they are entering. Changing that law is about as likely as repealing the electoral college.

We have used a couple from Argentina to do house cleaning for us for several years now. He is a pastor here in the US.

He told me last week that they (husband, wife, 3 daughters) just got their US Citizenship. Their church held a celebration for them. They had to pay $1500 so their eldest daughter could go to college. Their teenage son flunked the test but will have one more chance. He hopes he will study harder this time - the test is not simple he said. Not sure how long he has been in the US but I know it is more than 3 years since he worked at our old house for some time . Update my wife thinks it has been at least 6 years and we met them through the English as a Second Language (ESL) program at our church.

--------------------------

Out of interest I just did a little research about the process for citizenship. First they must get a Green Card.

How Long Does it Take to Get a Green Card?

Immediate Relative Green Cards are processed within a few months since they have no yearly cap

Family Preference Green Cards are processed from 1 to 10 years depending on the wait time and yearly caps

Employment Based Green Cards are processed from 1 to 4 years depending on the wait time and yearly caps

Diversity Green Card winners are announced within 7 months after the initial lottery applications, but the visa processing after the announcements takes another 7 months.


Then they must study for and take the test for citizenship.

How Long Does the U.S. Citizenship Process Take?

From getting a green card to taking the U.S. citizenship test and interview, it can take quite a long time to become a U.S. citizen. Currently, it takes about 6 months to a year to get U.S. Citizenship from the time you apply.


I know one researcher/professor/employee working near me (now deceased) from India (Rom was his name). He needed over 10 years to get citizenship and never did get a security clearance before he died at age about 70 - he was still working. His expertise in reentry physics was perhaps second to none in the world and he improved signature codes used in Missile Defense systems analysis.

No wonder that so many are retreating to Mexico. As Sandy wrote in red above there are More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S. Not sure about Central America. But , imo, it is not near a “national emergency”.

When I said I thought the process should be made more lenient, I was thinking about Rom. I'm not sure if his wife ever got her citizenship.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9143
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Immigration Law Changes

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:51 pm

I wonder how many different paths to citizenship we have for immigrants? Anyone know?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests

cron