border jumpers

[The_Dude 1,142]

so this is going to turn into some lakota thing or some such, ok i see where this is going, or 800 YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARS as my father law says. whatever man

What I was trying to say was, that where I live, it's not the hispanic immigrants who are not trying to assimilate. Each and every culture who immigrated here retains some of their heritage, but some, put theirs above all else. I share your frustration at those who think that we should respect their culture, yet they refuse any form of assimilation.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Example 3 raises some good questions. The other examples have some problems.

In example 1, when you compare the laws of two countries, there are bound to be discrepancies. Unless you expect anything that is legal in any country to suddenly be legal everywhere, I don't see what you are driving at.

In example 2, I do not know of any states that would prosecute statutory rape when the "victim" is 17 particularly when the "perpetrator" is under 21. Almost all states have some sort of rolling window, where the victim has to be a certain amount younger, usually something like 5 years. And in other states the age of consent is 16, period. But beyond the technicalities, this is like example 1. Laws in different countries have discrepancies.

In example 3, I think you are right on. The immigration system is the US is convoluted, pointlessly unfair, longer than necessary, unreasonably expensive, and arbitrarily inconsistent. I think anyone who has used it would agree.

Let me clarify. Laws are made for a reason. Usually they are made for order and protection. So if it is illegal to smoke pot or have sex with a 16 year-old in one civilized country, why is it legal a few miles away in another, almost identical civilized country? It can't be because one country thinks it's harmful, and other country thinks it's okay, or, can it? Someone can do something completely normal in Canada, yet if he does it in the USA he's a child molester by default.

Changing the law that would allow smoking pot is but a signature away. Lowering (or raising) the age of consent is also only a matter of one signature. Same with immigration. EWI can be wiped clean with one signature. Illegals of today can become legals tomorrow. In fact, I was illegal, and since I married a USC, I became legal. The transition from good guy to bad guy to good guy in full flight.

I don't know what immigration reform will bring for the millions of illegal immigrants, but some of them may be offered a viable way to become legal and law-abiding citizens in the not to far future.

In fact, if the US immigration system wasn't as hopelessly flawed as it is, instead allowing "normal" people to immigrate, we wouldn't have nearly as many illegal immigrants. Most of them are illegal because there's no way for them to become legal in a family-oriented immigration system. Heck, even wealthy, well-educated, tax-paying, job-creating Europeans can't become legal, unless they marry a USC. How do I know that?

I only wonder if -- once the former illegals are safely inside the boat -- would they turn against their still illegal comrades and scream "the boat is full" like many of us do it right now, demanding for harsher treatment and stricter enforcement, or would they have a better understanding of the issue at hand?

[Dan T 8]

What I was trying to say was, that where I live, it's not the hispanic immigrants who are not trying to assimilate. Each and every culture who immigrated here retains some of their heritage, but some, put theirs above all else. I share your frustration at those who think that we should respect their culture, yet they refuse any form of assimilation.

ok fair enough I was just expecting some rant about henry II or the laudebilter, black 47, up to collins and dev etc. my mistake. please dont think i was making light of any of that. I did misunderstand what you were trying to say and i do think we're more in agreement than not.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Candice,

one of the best submissions I've encountered since joining VJ. I had to give it a "thumbs up." Did you by any chance study philosophy?

I hope to forgive me when I just jump on your train and offer another perspective: exploring the difference between legal and illegal.

Let's do it in 3 easy steps, shall we?

Example 1: Drugs

If you smoke pot in the Netherlands, it's legal. If you do that in the US, it's a crime. If you admit to having smoked pot, even once, you are declared a persona non grata for the US, despite the fact that even most Presidents of the United States have done that.

Is smoking pot illegal because it is "bad?" If so, why is it only bad for US citizens, but not for Dutch people? Or is smoking pot only "bad" if it's done on US soil, yet not on Dutch soil? If it's not bad on Dutch soil, is it still bad if USCs do it in the Netherlands? So it it a moral issue, a geographic one, or a genetic one?

How can something be legal and illegal at the same time?

Example 2: Sex

If a 19 year-old has sex with a 17 year-old in any European country, it's perfectly okay. If the same person has sex with his girlfriend in the US, it's Statutory Rape, a crime, for which he may go to jail and has to register as a sex offender.

Is having sex with a 17 year-old illegal because it's "bad?" If so, is it only bad for US citizens, but not for Europeans? Or is it bad because European girls are more developed and more mature than US girls? How can something be legal and illegal in two otherwise identical societies?

Example 3: Immigration

If you enter the US with a visa, or as participant of the WVP, you're legal. If you overstay only one day, even if it's beyond your control (sick/accident), you're illegal. If you marry your fiance in the US, you're still illegal. If your finance is a USC, you're legal again. If you enter the US, get married, and adjust status, having planed so, you're illegal. If you didn't plan it, you're legal. So the difference between the latter two is a mindset, right?

Illegal immigrants can become legal with the stroke of a pen. EWI, now a deal breaker, can be wiped off the law with another signature. There's no inherent quality to legality and illegality; it's all interpretation.

The line between legal and illegal is constantly changing and open to the mood of lawmakers. You can be a rapist or murderer and get amnesty for your crimes plus become part of the witness protection program at the will of a single D.A. Why?

Food for thought, people.

I think you've labeled some grey laws and then lumped them in with something black and white. How many countries have open borders? (excluding the EU - for argument sake its basically one country in terms of immigration). Almost every country in the world has a closed border system (assuming they have a strong functioning government).

The only immigration reform we need is a retooling of USCIS and stronger immigration enforcement. It sickens me to see illegals on TV complaining about "raids" etc. or complaining that their families are broken up by deportation. Its sickening that they show their faces on tv and fail to take responsibility for their actions. Their family is broken by their own actions.

Last night an illegal spoke at a protest about is opportunity to get a degree....ironically he stole someone's scholarship, probably a minority.

[sachinky 464]

The U.S. is not unique. Immigration in most, especially, First World countries, is primarily family or employment based.

A wealthy, tax-paying, educated Indian citizen like me can't pack my bags and move to France tomorrow to live just because I think the French are awesome and I like their bread.

[SunDrop 59]

(excluding the EU - for argument sake its basically one country in terms of immigration).

Actually, it's not. How's this for a lunatic example, for the sake of which I'm already married to my USC fiance:

We decide we're going to live in Europe. To get him into the UK as a LPR, I have to pay several £100s for a spousal visa application. Granted, it only takes a couple weeks to adjudicate, but meeting some of the qualifying criteria is nigh on impossible to gauge. There are no official cut-offs for income required, for example.

However, we could opt to live in Ireland (Republic of, not Northern). I literally get on a plane, land, rent a house, get a job and require absolutely no paperwork. I can do this as an EU citizen. My USC spouse gets on a plane bound for Dublin, with our marriage certificate and when he lands, announces that he's joining his EU wife. 90 days VWP and all he has to do by the expiration is pop into our local police station and register as resident there. Couple of weeks later, he gets a resident's permit through the door. No visa, no EAD, no AP...

It's absolutely insane that I have to jump through moveable hoops to live with my VWP eligible spouse in my own country when we could live in the neighbouring country in the time and money it takes to get a plane from AZ to Dublin...

I'm sure this is going to be contentious, but I'm curious to know what other VJers make of the idea that there should be a more streamlined and/or expeditious K-1/ CR-1 service for VWP eligible nationals. Could it be argued that if someone can have a level of trust/ absence of scrutiny when visiting a country, the same should be extended when they want to live in the US with their USC spouse. Absolutely, check our USC fiance/ees or spouses don't fall under the AWA. Absolutely, demand police checks, medical and financial assurances. But is the rest of it as necessary?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Actually, it's not. How's this for a lunatic example, for the sake of which I'm already married to my USC fiance:

We decide we're going to live in Europe. To get him into the UK as a LPR, I have to pay several £100s for a spousal visa application. Granted, it only takes a couple weeks to adjudicate, but meeting some of the qualifying criteria is nigh on impossible to gauge. There are no official cut-offs for income required, for example.

However, we could opt to live in Ireland (Republic of, not Northern). I literally get on a plane, land, rent a house, get a job and require absolutely no paperwork. I can do this as an EU citizen. My USC spouse gets on a plane bound for Dublin, with our marriage certificate and when he lands, announces that he's joining his EU wife. 90 days VWP and all he has to do by the expiration is pop into our local police station and register as resident there. Couple of weeks later, he gets a resident's permit through the door. No visa, no EAD, no AP...

It's absolutely insane that I have to jump through moveable hoops to live with my VWP eligible spouse in my own country when we could live in the neighbouring country in the time and money it takes to get a plane from AZ to Dublin...

I'm sure this is going to be contentious, but I'm curious to know what other VJers make of the idea that there should be a more streamlined and/or expeditious K-1/ CR-1 service for VWP eligible nationals. Could it be argued that if someone can have a level of trust/ absence of scrutiny when visiting a country, the same should be extended when they want to live in the US with their USC spouse. Absolutely, check our USC fiance/ees or spouses don't fall under the AWA. Absolutely, demand police checks, medical and financial assurances. But is the rest of it as necessary?

Yes, I think it is necessary. Travel is different than residency.

And UKBA has pretty clear-cut guidelines for income needed to qualify for spousal or fiance visas. For husband and wife (or unmarried partners), in other words a family of two, the income remaining after expenses must be 100.95 GBP per week.

[Dan T 8]

I do believe in making the process easier for people who are genuinely interested in working, paying taxes, and not being a parasite to the ####### of society and making it harder for the people who are just simply trying to flee their country of birth for monetary reasons(political and armed conflict are different, I welcome our cuban neighbors to the south without hesitation). However, I have no sympathy whatever for those people that just ignored the existing laws entirely just because theyre too dificult, or expensive, to follow.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I do believe in making the process easier for people who are genuinely interested in working, paying taxes, and not being a parasite to the ####### of society and making it harder for the people who are just simply trying to flee their country of birth for monetary reasons(political and armed conflict are different, I welcome our cuban neighbors to the south without hesitation). However, I have no sympathy whatever for those people that just ignored the existing laws entirely just because theyre too dificult, or expensive, to follow.

Dan, you do realize that the Irish used to be (in the history of immigration bigotry) the Mexicans of today, don't you?

[peejay 327]

Dan, you do realize that the Irish used to be (in the history of immigration bigotry) the Mexicans of today, don't you?

The big fault in your comparison is that the Irish of 100+ years ago were processed through a port of entry and the influx was controlled. Not to mention that the USA of that era was not a modern 21st century welfare state as it is today and that people swimming across a river or jumping over a fence at midnight with a pocket full of fraudulent documents is not controlled or regulated.

[scandal 951]

The big fault in your comparison is that the Irish of 100+ years ago were processed through a port of entry and the influx was controlled. Not to mention that the USA of that era was not a modern 21st century welfare state as it is today and that people swimming across a river or jumping over a fence at midnight with a pocket full of fraudulent documents is not controlled or regulated.

That does not change one iota the fact that the treatment received by first generation Irish (and German, and to some extent Italian and Jewish) immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century was hostile, reactionary and directly comparable to the anti-Hispanic sentiment seen among much of the "tough on immigration" crowd today.

Irish, German and other "papist" immigrants were seen by the Know Nothings and other anti-immigration activists as a fifth column within America, as disloyal, as being unwilling and unable to integrate, and as being pretty much subhuman.

Similar sentiments expressed, of course, about the "celestial" immigrants (aka Asians- predominantly Japanese and Chinese).

Sound familiar?

You'd think that maybe we'd have learned something over the last century and a half but apparently not.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That does not change one iota the fact that the treatment received by first generation Irish (and German, and to some extent Italian and Jewish) immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century was hostile, reactionary and directly comparable to the anti-Hispanic sentiment seen among much of the "tough on immigration" crowd today.

Irish, German and other "papist" immigrants were seen by the Know Nothings and other anti-immigration activists as a fifth column within America, as disloyal, as being unwilling and unable to integrate, and as being pretty much subhuman.

Similar sentiments expressed, of course, about the "celestial" immigrants (aka Asians- predominantly Japanese and Chinese).

Sound familiar?

You'd think that maybe we'd have learned something over the last century and a half but apparently not.

You are talking about two separate things here - perception of all immigrants vs. the issue of legal/illegal immigrants. Those immigrants mentioned above were still legally entering the US.

[scandal 951]

You are talking about two separate things here - perception of all immigrants vs. the issue of legal/illegal immigrants. Those immigrants mentioned above were still legally entering the US.

That's only because there were no laws governing the admission of Irish/German immigrants during the mid 19th century.

Peejay's point that they were processed through a port of entry should not make you think that they passed through a formal immigration control. There were no travel documents, passports, or visas in those days. There was no distinction between a visitor or someone who arrived with intent to remain permanently. People simply bought passage on a boat and off they sailed, with some vague idea about the New World over the horizon. There was no need to illegally evade a border crossing, since no such crossings existed.

The first laws to systematically restrict immigration to the USA broadly were the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882.

These laws fed into the hysteria gripping the nation that Chinese immigrants were unfairly (aka illegally) entering the country, stealing jobs, and changing the nature of America for the worse.

Tell me again why this doesn't parallel the same xenophobia seen today?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

That's only because there were no laws governing the admission of Irish/German immigrants during the mid 19th century.

Peejay's point that they were processed through a port of entry should not make you think that they passed through a formal immigration control. There were no travel documents, passports, or visas in those days. There was no distinction between a visitor or someone who arrived with intent to remain permanently. People simply bought passage on a boat and off they sailed, with some vague idea about the New World over the horizon. There was no need to illegally evade a border crossing, since no such crossings existed.

The first laws to systematically restrict immigration to the USA broadly were the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882.

These laws fed into the hysteria gripping the nation that Chinese immigrants were unfairly (aka illegally) entering the country, stealing jobs, and changing the nature of America for the worse.

Tell me again why this doesn't parallel the same xenophobia seen today?

The only parallel is volume. Also you can't compare the US of now to the 1800's. There is a limited carrying capacity to any country and population control is extremely important to the ecological sustainability of any nation.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Sousuke

[Fandango 1,439]

Let me clarify. Laws are made for a reason. Usually they are made for order and protection. So if it is illegal to smoke pot or have sex with a 16 year-old in one civilized country, why is it legal a few miles away in another, almost identical civilized country? It can't be because one country thinks it's harmful, and other country thinks it's okay, or, can it? Someone can do something completely normal in Canada, yet if he does it in the USA he's a child molester by default.

Changing the law that would allow smoking pot is but a signature away. Lowering (or raising) the age of consent is also only a matter of one signature. Same with immigration. EWI can be wiped clean with one signature. Illegals of today can become legals tomorrow. In fact, I was illegal, and since I married a USC, I became legal. The transition from good guy to bad guy to good guy in full flight.

I don't know what immigration reform will bring for the millions of illegal immigrants, but some of them may be offered a viable way to become legal and law-abiding citizens in the not to far future.

In fact, if the US immigration system wasn't as hopelessly flawed as it is, instead allowing "normal" people to immigrate, we wouldn't have nearly as many illegal immigrants. Most of them are illegal because there's no way for them to become legal in a family-oriented immigration system. Heck, even wealthy, well-educated, tax-paying, job-creating Europeans can't become legal, unless they marry a USC. How do I know that?

I only wonder if -- once the former illegals are safely inside the boat -- would they turn against their still illegal comrades and scream "the boat is full" like many of us do it right now, demanding for harsher treatment and stricter enforcement, or would they have a better understanding of the issue at hand?

Implying that only illegals-turned-legal have a 'better understanding' than 'many of us' is a bit harsh, imo. I don't know your situation other than what your timeline suggests, but illegals who become legal are not 'bad guy to good' in my book. You willfully broke immigration law, and were rewarded afterwards. I don't think that's right.

I don't care who it is trying to immigrate...if you can't legally get in, there is absolutely no place for you (general you) here.