Archive

Proposed: "Sins of the Father" immigration act

  • NNN
    I was talking to a friend of mine (whose parents were immigrants) over a few issues related to immigration. In short, one of his friends has lapsed into "illegal" status through no fault of his own, meaning he'd be at risk of deportation at pretty much any time in spite of the fact that he has a college degree.

    The situation is this. The parents came over with their two children; the parents had study visas and wished to continue their research in America. The kids were something like 3 and 5 at the time. The parents overstayed their visa, meaning that not only were they illegal, but the kids were as well. The kids, unaware of this and unable to do anything about it (since they were under 18 at the time), ended up still going to college and receiving degrees. However, because of the "illegal" status that was slapped on them through no fault of their own, they are unable to legally be hired, meaning that they work in the underground economy. The deportation risk exists and is causing various other issues as well.

    So here is what I was thinking. I am a firm believer that the purpose of law is to protect justice, therefore law enforcement exists to administer justice. It in no way benefits our society to throw out college-educated kids whose immigration status ultimately is in no way their fault. So I propose this.

    The "Sins of the Father" immigration act would do the following:
    - Temporary amnesty* for a period of three years from the time of passage will be granted to those who meet all of the following conditions:
    1) The person applying for amnesty is the child or ward of parents who entered the country legally through use of a student visa
    2) The person was under 18 at the time of entering the country and under 18 at the time that the parents' visas expired
    3A) The person has completed at least a four-year degree, OR
    3B) The person has met one of the following conditions of armed forces service: an honorable discharge, a medical discharge related to being wounded in combat, or retired from active duty
    4) The person has a clean criminal record
    5) The person is fluent in English

    *Temporary amnesty is defined as such:
    - The person is reclassified as a permanent resident, thus acquiring a green card
    - As a result of sections 3A or 3B, the person would have their naturalization time frame shortened from five years to two years
    - If the person does not apply for citizenship within three years of passage of the act, their status reverts back to "illegal"

    Unlike the more sweeping immigration proposals, this would ultimately affect a much smaller segment of the population. It would allow those who are apparently good enough to serve in combat or to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars earning a degree to emerge from the shadows, hold employment outside of the underground economy, and boost the overall strength and profile of the country and of our society. I also can't see any big loopholes that would take the number affected from probably less than 250,000 to the millions, as many would fear.
  • CenterBHSFan
    NNN, did your friend applied for citizenship when he turned 18 or at anytime up to this point?
  • Glory Days
    CenterBHSFan wrote: NNN, did your friend applied for citizenship when he turned 18 or at anytime up to this point?
    i went to high school with a kid who was in the same situation who ended up doing this.
  • iclfan2
    Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
  • cbus4life
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Aren't they?

    Can't keep all the citizenship rules for various countries straight.
  • bigkahuna
    Are you asking if they are of if they aren't considered citizens?

    The way you are automatically a U.S. citizen is

    1. (I forget the Latin term) but born on the soil, so yes a Mexican momma put her vajayjay in Texas, the baby is a citizen

    2. (Again forget the Latin) but born of the blood, If your parent/parents are a citizen, so are you
  • cbus4life
    Yea, sorry, wasn't clear.

    I know some countries are moving away from the "if you're born on our soil, you're a citizen, regardless of whether your parents are or not" approach.

    I didn't know if that had been modified by the U.S. or not.

    Thanks.

    I have known some folks who have went to countries in the EU when they were due in about a month or two and just stayed on "vacation" until the baby was born.

    Lots of benefits to a person possibly having dual citizenship with the United States and an EU country.
  • iclfan2
    I was saying that I think the law is ridiculous and should be changed.
  • LJ
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Jus Soli is one of the founding concepts of this country.
  • LJ
    bigkahuna wrote: Are you asking if they are of if they aren't considered citizens?

    The way you are automatically a U.S. citizen is

    1. (I forget the Latin term) but born on the soil, so yes a Mexican momma put her vajayjay in Texas, the baby is a citizen

    2. (Again forget the Latin) but born of the blood, If your parent/parents are a citizen, so are you
    Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis
  • tk421
    LJ wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Jus Soli is one of the founding concepts of this country.
    That needs to be changed.
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Jus Soli is one of the founding concepts of this country.
    That needs to be changed.
    So now a constitutionalist doesn't agree with the founding fathers?
  • bigmanbt
    I am for unrestricted legal immigration at all time, so I would support it. A good way to get people to roll back the entitlements is to allow millions in here legally through greencards. One of the first agendas of the Progressive Era was to restrict immigration so they could limit the amount of people in the US and put their policies in place. Plus, these immigrants are coming to this land because they like freedom and are willing to work hard and make it on their own, I'd rather have those kinds of people than many of the ones we have now who like handouts and government. Can we trade people?
  • LJ
    my vote is the weird one. I accidentally clicked no when I meant to click yes
  • tk421
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Jus Soli is one of the founding concepts of this country.
    That needs to be changed.
    So now a constitutionalist doesn't agree with the founding fathers?
    The founding fathers didn't have to deal with millions of illegal immigrants pouring into their country every year. I'm sorry, but the fact that a illegal woman manages to sneak into this country and go to a hospital where they are obligated to have her child there, shouldn't mean her kids and ultimately their entire family can stay in this country.
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Jus Soli is one of the founding concepts of this country.
    That needs to be changed.
    So now a constitutionalist doesn't agree with the founding fathers?
    The founding fathers didn't have to deal with millions of illegal immigrants pouring into their country every year. I'm sorry, but the fact that a illegal woman manages to sneak into this country and go to a hospital where they are obligated to have her child there, shouldn't mean her kids and ultimately their entire family can stay in this country.
    Ummmm.... everyone was an immigrant back then and that is how the first natural citizens came about, jus soli. The Founding fathers didn't have to deal with people protesting funerals and slandering the deceased. See what I am point out here?
  • cbus4life
    So if we get to "change" the Constitution in this case because it isn't capable of adequately dealing with that modern problem, can we "change" it in other cases where it doesn't seem to adequately put to rest other modern issues?

    Slippery slope...
  • tk421
    So, you are okay with the fact that illegal immigrants have children in this country that are citizens, and they use that fact to stay in this country permanently? After all, you can't break up a family. It is a huge problem that we can not afford.
  • bigmanbt
    tk421 wrote: So, you are okay with the fact that illegal immigrants have children in this country that are citizens, and they use that fact to stay in this country permanently? After all, you can't break up a family. It is a huge problem that we can not afford.
    Precisely, we can't afford it. So that's why we need to let them in here. It's a weird way of thinking, but if you follow me, it will work.

    Allowing all types of immigrants in here makes our current entitlements skyrocket in cost. Either we repeal them, or we go bankrupt, and both scenarios seem better than the road we are on currently. We need to allow MORE immigration.
  • tk421
    bigmanbt wrote:
    tk421 wrote: So, you are okay with the fact that illegal immigrants have children in this country that are citizens, and they use that fact to stay in this country permanently? After all, you can't break up a family. It is a huge problem that we can not afford.
    Precisely, we can't afford it. So that's why we need to let them in here. It's a weird way of thinking, but if you follow me, it will work.

    Allowing all types of immigrants in here makes our current entitlements skyrocket in cost. Either we repeal them, or we go bankrupt, and both scenarios seem better than the road we are on currently. We need to allow MORE immigration.
    Uh huh, hell, let's open up the borders and let anyone in. That will fix this country. Yeah, right. We'll have 500 million people in the country within 20 years and be in even worse shape. There aren't enough jobs as is for the 300 million+ people in this country, you want even MORE immigration?
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote: So, you are okay with the fact that illegal immigrants have children in this country that are citizens, and they use that fact to stay in this country permanently? After all, you can't break up a family. It is a huge problem that we can not afford.
    Am I ok with the jus soli system? Yes. Am I ok with illegal immigration? no. But, I just thought that I should point out your hypocrisy.
  • tk421
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote: So, you are okay with the fact that illegal immigrants have children in this country that are citizens, and they use that fact to stay in this country permanently? After all, you can't break up a family. It is a huge problem that we can not afford.
    Am I ok with the jus soli system? Yes. Am I ok with illegal immigration? no. But, I just thought that I should point out your hypocrisy.
    What is hypocritical about it?
  • LJ
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    Am I ok with the jus soli system? Yes. Am I ok with illegal immigration? no. But, I just thought that I should point out your hypocrisy.
    What is hypocritical about it?

    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    tk421 wrote:
    LJ wrote:
    iclfan2 wrote: Can we also stop calling babies born to illegals on American soil citizens?
    Jus Soli is one of the founding concepts of this country.
    That needs to be changed.
    So now a constitutionalist doesn't agree with the founding fathers?
    The founding fathers didn't have to deal with millions of illegal immigrants pouring into their country every year. I'm sorry, but the fact that a illegal woman manages to sneak into this country and go to a hospital where they are obligated to have her child there, shouldn't mean her kids and ultimately their entire family can stay in this country.
    Ummmm.... everyone was an immigrant back then and that is how the first natural citizens came about, jus soli. The Founding fathers didn't have to deal with people protesting funerals and slandering the deceased. See what I am point out here?
    cbus4life wrote: So if we get to "change" the Constitution in this case because it isn't capable of adequately dealing with that modern problem, can we "change" it in other cases where it doesn't seem to adequately put to rest other modern issues?

    Slippery slope...
  • bigmanbt
    tk421 wrote:
    bigmanbt wrote:
    tk421 wrote: So, you are okay with the fact that illegal immigrants have children in this country that are citizens, and they use that fact to stay in this country permanently? After all, you can't break up a family. It is a huge problem that we can not afford.
    Precisely, we can't afford it. So that's why we need to let them in here. It's a weird way of thinking, but if you follow me, it will work.

    Allowing all types of immigrants in here makes our current entitlements skyrocket in cost. Either we repeal them, or we go bankrupt, and both scenarios seem better than the road we are on currently. We need to allow MORE immigration.
    Uh huh, hell, let's open up the borders and let anyone in. That will fix this country. Yeah, right. We'll have 500 million people in the country within 20 years and be in even worse shape. There aren't enough jobs as is for the 300 million+ people in this country, you want even MORE immigration?
    That's a common misconception that really hasn't been proven true throughout history. More people also = more consumers which = more jobs to satisfy those consumers. These "illegal immigrants" work harder to be free than most people do that are here legally. They aren't looking for handouts, they just want freedom and a chance at a good life. Your's and my ancestors were once that way, it's a good thing the US didn't restrict immigration then or we wouldn't be here. We need a new Ellis Island, because frankly, the immigrants believe in true American values more than most of American citizens.
  • SQ_Crazies
    NNN wrote:
    5) The person is fluent in English
    Yes, as long as it included that. But good luck getting that into a bill like this.