cellio | AZ, ur doing it rong

Entry tags:

AZ, ur doing it rong

On the heels of passing legislation to place local police officers between a rock and a hard place, Arizona is now proposing (state) legislation to deny citizenship to people born of illegals. I say this from the bottom of my law-respecting soul: Arizona, WTF?

Now I am clearly in a minority among my friends; I don't believe that we should just turn a blind eye to law-breaking. Illegals shouldn't get "amnesty" just because they're already here; even if we are going to set aside their past crimes, at the very least the ones who came here of their own free will should go to the back of the line, behind everyone who's following the process, and it's not wrong to make them wait at home. Impractical, maybe, but not wrong. (Also impractical is any large-scale hunt for them; catch them where you find them and by all means look at large, suspect employers, but leave it at that.) I have sympathy for people who came here illegally in their parents' arms, and I don't know what to do about that.

And I believe that if a police officer who stops you for a traffic violation can give you a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, a local misdemeanor, then how much the moreso should it be perfectly legal to check for felony-level violations of federal law. And I also believe that "anchor babies" born to illegals should not confer citizenship, though they are unambiguously citizens themselves per the Constitution.

But. Arizona, you're gone off the deep end and you're making it harder for your law-respecting allies to hold any traction in this debate. Stop it. You're giving ammo to the other side.

Certain things are the domain of federal law, and you should butt out. Don't make your local police officers, who often have to rely on the good will of communities they work in, into the enemy. And for heaven's sake, what on earth possessed you to go up against the US Constitution? That can only end badly. (You should maybe try reading it sometime.) If Congress passes legislation granting automatic citizenship to illegals who come here to have their kids, those us us who have a problem with that will hold you directly responsible.

The immigration reform I want to see goes something like this:

Eliminate quotas. Anyone who wants to come here legally is welcome and a path to citizenship should exist as it does now. Entry should be expedited for anyone with a credible need for asylum.
(Edit based on comments:) Streamline and simplify the application process.
Government-funded support is only for citizens. We can't afford, nor should we be on the hook, to support all the world's needy.
Punish those who employ illegals along with the illegals. If this means that consumer prices go up because the people "who will do the dirty jobs Americans won't do" are replaced by others at a higher price, I really don't have a problem with that. I'd rather not be part of a system of exploitation and I realize that's not free.
Citizen children should be treated the same way they would be if, instead of being deported, mom and dad were doing jail time for a different crime. We don't forgive armed robbery or murder just because there are kids; why should we do something different in this case? (The children can always leave with the parents, of course. Many things in life are not fair; parents' bad decisions, and just plain dumb luck, can have effects on kids. And these wouldn't be the first kids who are uprooted from their friends and community because the parents have to move.)

Arizona, I think we agree on most of this (maybe not the first point). How about channeling some of your furor toward Congress to work on this constructively? Please stop making things worse.

Threaded | Flat

Oh, it gets better....

http://www.ecanadanow.com/world/us-world/2010/06/15/can-landmines-secure-us-border/

Really just curious:

Government-funded support is only for citizens. We can't afford, nor should we be on the hook, to support all the world's needy.

Does this include public schools for children?

Government-funded support is only for citizens. We can't afford, nor should we be on the hook, to support all the world's needy

How about those people who have green cards (they aren't citizens, but are here legally). They pay taxes ... shouldn't they be eligible for government support? Or, if they don't get government support, they shouldn't pay taxes. :)

Overall I agree with what you said, especially about coming here legally (my parents did it the right way when they emigrated to the states).

I am alarmed that a border state, on the border with a nation that is descending into what I consider a small civil war, is itself defying the Federal Government like this.

Arizona is now proposing (state) legislation to deny citizenship to people born of illegals. I say this from the bottom of my law-respecting soul: Arizona, WTF?

...what's the problem? I'm confused by you position. Entirely putting aside my own opinions on this issue: what's do you see the problem being with denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants? If it's wrong to "cut in line" (receive amnesty for already being here), why should they be able to "steal" a citizenship for their children by cutting in line on their behalf?

I think the argument is that so long as the children of illegal immigrants are automatically legal citizens, there is an incentive to come here illegally to procure citizenships for one's children, and by eliminating citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, coming here illegally is deincentivized.

I would add to your bullet points significant reforms in how immigration is handled, and how quickly the paperwork is processed (and/or an immediate visa extension if they filed in time and the government hasn't done their part).

Basically, I'd like to see the ability to apply for a new class of visa from within the US, while you're here on a different type, instead of having to go home and expend a waiting period before even asking.

I know Arizona is (unsurprisingly, given their location) focused on illegal immigrants who entered illicitly and never had a legal presence in this country. However, my understanding is that either a majority or a large minority of "illegal immigrants" are visa-overstays, or "I started the paperwork, and my visa expired while the paperwork is in process, and now I can't re-file because I'm technically illegal, and I can't leave because if I leave I'll be barred from return for a decade because I'm now here illegally. But if I stay quietly and keep my head down, maybe the paperwork will come back and I'll be legal again? Or will I? It's not like I can just call up INS and ask, unless I feel like being imprisoned and deported by force, instead of either leaving with my dignity intact or staying quietly and hoping..."

If people trying their best to stay within their legal status and/or obtain the necessary legal status end up stymied because of the complexity of the application process or its duration, UR DOIN IT RONG. And by "U", I mean us, in the form of the US Government.

We don't forgive armed robbery or murder just because there are kids; why should we do something different in this case?

The cases are not quite parallel for several reasons. A parent in prison is usually eligible for release -- often at some point reasonably proximate temporally. Deported parents are not. The family is permanently severed. Children of parents in prison often have family who can serve as parent or guardian. Usually not the case here. finally, where the state must assume guardianship of the child of a prisoner, the state jurisdiction is clear. That is less true in cases of children separated from parents by deportation. Which jurisdiction is responsible for such children? The jurisdiction in which the illegally present parents are apprehended? The jurisdiction in which the child is resident?

This last is exceedingly important because of cost. States with high illegal immigrant populations will assume a disproportionate cost of fostering and caring for citizen children of illegal immigrants.

Morally, the situation is the same, but the scale is ridiculous. We are already dealing with this in "three strikes" states where voters simply did not consider the cost of scaling the existing system.

Mind, I should confess to a bias for open citizenship and amnesty even independent of my utilitarian concerns. I consider all who come to this country looking for a better life to share the same dream that drew my own ancestors here. I recognize the "my ancestors came legally -- some even died because they couldn't come legally" moral claim.

I agree, they're going about it the wrong way. I do think it is stupid that just because a kid is born here they get automatic citizenship. However, we're a republic that explicitly says that states cannot deny rights that have been granted at the federal level. How they think they will get around that I am not sure.

As for government-funded services, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, we don't have enough money to pay for people who just wander in to get them -- that's like a restaurant that lets homeless people walk in and eat for free, then jacks up the prices for the paying customers. On the other hand, basic health services are essential: if they are going to be here you don't want them to be vectors for the next plague.

I also agree there should not be quotas, with the provision that it should be very hard to get in. Canada does a good job with this. I'm not even sure I would qualify to get in!

I don't support birthright citizenship, and don't believe the Constitution automatically grants it, either (the key clause is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when it comes to citizenship). But that's a separate issue.

That said, my preference is for wide open borders. Let everyone in, and have government-funded support for no one. I have no more desire to be forced to support American parasites than I do foreign ones.

Just want to point out a couple errors in your initial assumptions (not sure if any comments already hit this, so apologies if I'm duplicating things).

There is a misconception about the severity of the law. Entering the U.S. without being "admitted and inspected" is, indeed, a crime. But what type of crime? The maximum penalty for this crime is a maximum of 6 months in jail and a $200 fine. That's it. It equates to a class B misdemeanor in Utah (I use Utah as an example simply because I know the equivalency there). If you've ever driven your car for a month or two after the registration expired or for a time after your license expired for after your insurance expired, you've committed a crime of the exact same
magnitude. Furthermore, a lot of the immigrants who are here actually entered legally and just overstayed their visas. That IS NOT a crime. There is no criminal penalty associated with it.

Also, the "crime" in question is not the mere fact of their "presence" here. The crime is committed when you cross the border and ends the moment you enter the U.S. It is not, as has been suggested, an "on going" crime. From the law's perspective, after you are here you begin to accrue "illegal presence" which can (and almost always does) prejudice your immigration prospects, but be clear...being here illegally is NOT a crime. It's the act of crossing the border illegally that is the crime.

Also, it's a bit silly to talk about immigrants, especially those from Latino countries, "getting in line." The fact is that for the vast majority of those people there is no line. They simply won't qualify for a visa of any sort under the current laws. Also, for those who can get in the line, the wait time for most of them is interminable. For example, the current wait time for the unmarried son or daughter of U.S. citizen from Mexico is 18-years. And that's just the "legal" wait time. The actual wait time is closer to 50 years. So, if a U.S. citizen petitions for son or daughter who lives in Mexico, at a minimum it will be 18-years before that child can join them, legally,
in the U.S.

Even if you are married to a U.S. citizen and have several U.S. citizen children, and even if you've never broken a single law in the U.S., your chances of getting legal can be slim, especially if your family is healthy and intact. You see, if an alien has been in
the country illegally for more than one year, then when his or her wife or husband petitions for him or her, that alien will eventually have to return to their home country for their visa interview (the act is called "consular processing"). However, they go their interview knowing that their visa will be denied. It's an absolute fact. Once the visa is denied, they must then pay almost $700 for the opportunity to apply for a "waiver" which waives their illegal presence and allows them to enter legally. However, to qualify for the waiver you must demonstrate that failure to allow you to re-enter the country will result in "extreme hardship" to your U.S. citizen spouse (the kids don't really count under the law except insofar as their hardship impacts your spouse). Extreme hardship is defined as a hardship far beyond that which would normally be experienced by a spouse in that situation. In other words, the fact that your wife will lose the house and be cast on the street and destitute if you aren't there doesn't count because the government assumes that such hardships are the "norm" and not extreme. Thus, unless you wife, or some child, suffers from a serious physical or mental ailment, you likely won't be admitted. In that case, you can either sneak back illegally, and if you that then you are barred for life, or your wife and children can experience a de facto deportation and move to Mexico to be with you.

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject