Should immigration be legalised and faster to stop illegal immigration ?

[homesick_american 1]

They say that is why they are jacking up the fees, but I think it's to discourage some people from filing. The fees can be an obstacle and if they raise them as much as they say they are going to, I would imagine that some people will not be able to afford the visas. Just a thought anyhow.....

Well, there is no evidence of that yet. It's an obstacle? Well then who do you think ought to pay for it, US citizens?

Absolutely!

I do not believe the only 2 choices are amnesty or mass roundups, detentions, & deportations. There is also attrition through workplace enforcement of the law. Without illegal work, the illegal alien has no reason to stay and will leave.

Illegal aliens broke and break numerous laws already, so riots, violence, and anarchy are no surprise from them. Maybe we should quit enforcing laws altogether against any crime in hopes it will go away by itself or fears it might piss off the criminals?

Awesome...I completely agree. It is time our politicians grew a backbone and started enforcing the law.

Yes, something should be done. Stop according US citizenship to children born to people in the country as visitors or illegally. No more anchor babies, no more worries along those lines. That'd be something I, as a US taxpayer could applaud.

THANK YOU! I wonder when we're going to end this absolute madness. A lot of European countries don't give you citizenship automatically just for being born there; the UK definitely doesn't. Why should we?

[jasonbrus 0]

first of all. a BIG thank to fellow board members for the enthusiatic debate from my earlier statement about more highly educated, high net worth immigrants. may i reply to some of you below.

charlesandnessa: yes. at present, if you are USC and have a wife or husband who is alien, you can get him/her to become PR within a short wait (may be 9-12 months). however, if you come alone to this country, with a PhD degree in electrical engineering (for example), you need to find an employer who hires you then you will be waiting in line. the wait can be as long as 5 years to 12 years (depending on your country of origin). aside from the wait time, the application process is extremely difficult and stringent compared to spousal visas. if you study our country's immigration policy, it is as if we do not want these high value immigrants whereas our southern border is wide open. whereas according to CIS, we have at least 200,000 illegal aliens coming to US, we only grant 85,000 high tech work visas for people with high tech skills.

Karencee: yes. U.S. need high value immigrants. just like canada, australia, new zealand. these countries do have illegal immigration but not to the extend of US. just an example, if you go to Immigration Canada homepage, you will see canada actually encourages the type of desirable new immigrants they want. if you are highly educated (with the job skills canada needs), with high net worth, becoming a PR in canada is easy. australia, new zealand the same. only US shuts out the high value immigrants and only allows 1) illegal 2) family 3)marriage.

Rebeccajo: you are right. the reason it is so much more difficult for people with high skill/networth is the "cap" or "quota". once the quota is used up, you wait thus you are dealing with years of waiting. this is BAD FOR US. because US is competing with the world to get these desirable immigrants. these people have lots of options, why bother to wait?

Homesick America: yes, anybody born in US is automatically USC. this law may be difficult to change though because this is embodied in our Constitution. to change this law, you need 2/3 majority in BOTH houses (US House and Senate). given the power of the Hispanic caucas, i don't think you get that. also, even if we got that, the enforcement of new law will mean booting out a lot of children and people, US as a compassionate country, will not have that. put it this way, i myself am adamently against illegal immigration however, when it comes to deporting children who were born here, i have reservation, after all, the "crime" is done by their parents and having the kids to take the punishment is against my belief. Having said, that, i was listening to talk radio KGO San Francisco and they interviewed two ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) agents. they said, they deport USC children born to illegals all the time albeit "compassionately". this means, the parents have the choice to keep the kids here in US, either to a USC family member or some form of foster care institutions or take them home back to their own countries. when the children get to be age of maturity, they have full rights to come back to US if they choose to. i think this enforcement policy makes sense.

[homesick_american 1]

Homesick America: yes, anybody born in US is automatically USC. this law may be difficult to change though because this is embodied in our Constitution. to change this law, you need 2/3 majority in BOTH houses (US House and Senate). given the power of the Hispanic caucas, i don't think you get that. also, even if we got that, the enforcement of new law will mean booting out a lot of children and people, US as a compassionate country, will not have that. put it this way, i myself am adamently against illegal immigration however, when it comes to deporting children who were born here, i have reservation, after all, the "crime" is done by their parents and having the kids to take the punishment is against my belief. Having said, that, i was listening to talk radio KGO San Francisco and they interviewed two ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) agents. they said, they deport USC children born to illegals all the time albeit "compassionately". this means, the parents have the choice to keep the kids here in US, either to a USC family member or some form of foster care institutions or take them home back to their own countries. when the children get to be age of maturity, they have full rights to come back to US if they choose to. i think this enforcement policy makes sense.

I understand how it would work; I don't think it's morally wrong to change the law if people are abusing it, which is what happens. Being born in the UK does not automatically make you a British citizen; I don't see the ethical dilemma at all. If we changed the law we would simply grandfather the children born before it and move on. I'm not suggesting deporting kids or stripping citizenship away from babies.

[doc_cute 0]

Homesick America: yes, anybody born in US is automatically USC. this law may be difficult to change though because this is embodied in our Constitution. to change this law, you need 2/3 majority in BOTH houses (US House and Senate). given the power of the Hispanic caucas, i don't think you get that. also, even if we got that, the enforcement of new law will mean booting out a lot of children and people, US as a compassionate country, will not have that. put it this way, i myself am adamently against illegal immigration however, when it comes to deporting children who were born here, i have reservation, after all, the "crime" is done by their parents and having the kids to take the punishment is against my belief. Having said, that, i was listening to talk radio KGO San Francisco and they interviewed two ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) agents. they said, they deport USC children born to illegals all the time albeit "compassionately". this means, the parents have the choice to keep the kids here in US, either to a USC family member or some form of foster care institutions or take them home back to their own countries. when the children get to be age of maturity, they have full rights to come back to US if they choose to. i think this enforcement policy makes sense.

I understand how it would work; I don't think it's morally wrong to change the law if people are abusing it, which is what happens. Being born in the UK does not automatically make you a British citizen; I don't see the ethical dilemma at all. If we changed the law we would simply grandfather the children born before it and move on. I'm not suggesting deporting kids or stripping citizenship away from babies.

Homesick America: yes, anybody born in US is automatically USC. this law may be difficult to change though because this is embodied in our Constitution. to change this law, you need 2/3 majority in BOTH houses (US House and Senate). given the power of the Hispanic caucas, i don't think you get that. also, even if we got that, the enforcement of new law will mean booting out a lot of children and people, US as a compassionate country, will not have that. put it this way, i myself am adamently against illegal immigration however, when it comes to deporting children who were born here, i have reservation, after all, the "crime" is done by their parents and having the kids to take the punishment is against my belief. Having said, that, i was listening to talk radio KGO San Francisco and they interviewed two ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) agents. they said, they deport USC children born to illegals all the time albeit "compassionately". this means, the parents have the choice to keep the kids here in US, either to a USC family member or some form of foster care institutions or take them home back to their own countries. when the children get to be age of maturity, they have full rights to come back to US if they choose to. i think this enforcement policy makes sense.

I understand how it would work; I don't think it's morally wrong to change the law if people are abusing it, which is what happens. Being born in the UK does not automatically make you a British citizen; I don't see the ethical dilemma at all. If we changed the law we would simply grandfather the children born before it and move on. I'm not suggesting deporting kids or stripping citizenship away from babies.

100 % true

[Heracles 417]

One of many problems with illegal immigration is that you have 19th century workers trying work in a 21st century economy. They need to secure the border, period..

I do not think anyone is against helping poor people out but America needs to focus on the millions of 'Americans' living in poverty, in this country, before they can help their Mexican neighbors.

[Heracles 417]

anybody born in US is automatically USC. this law may be difficult to change though because this is embodied in our Constitution.

I think it is time the constitution meets the 21st century. A lot of other developed countries have moved to prevent this from happening by stating that at least one of the parents must be a citizen, at the time birth, for a child to be granted automatic citizenship.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I think it is time the constitution meets the 21st century.

No, it isn't. The constitution is just fine thanks.

[Ban Hammer 14,091]

I think it is time the constitution meets the 21st century.

No, it isn't. The constitution is just fine thanks.

agreed - cause first on the chopping block for some would be the 2nd amendment.

[lucyrich 20]

Yes, something should be done. Stop according US citizenship to children born to people in the country as visitors or illegally. No more anchor babies, no more worries along those lines. That'd be something I, as a US taxpayer could applaud.

The problem with that idea comes in the details of its implementation.

Under current law, a birth certificate is proof of citizenship. But if you deny citizenship to children born in the US of illegal alien parents, then a birth certificate is no longer proof of citizenship. In order to prove citizenhip, a person would need not only his/her birth certificate, but also proof of the parents' citizenship or legal immigration status. Sometimes the identity of the father isn't known with certainty; much less the citizenship. This requirement to prove parents' citizenship would fall on ALL US citizens, every time we wanted to apply for a passport, to apply for a job, to register to vote, or to do any other thing requiring proof of citizenship or legal status.

In current law, an "anchor baby" can't do anything to help his/her parent's status until the baby turns 21 years old. And then, the parent will need to meet admissibility requirements. So I'm not so sure the "anchor babies" are such a huge problem, anyway. And I really don't believe the "solution" is better than the initial problem.

The granting of citizenship to anyone born in the US under US juriscition is part of the 14th Amendment to the constitution, and can only be repealed by another constitutional amendment. Thankfully, the forefathers made the constitutional amendment process a bit slow and difficult, so I think people born in the US will be granted automatic citizenship for some time to come.

And what would we do with all of the stateless noncitizens born in the US? We can't deport them and send them back to where they came from, because they came from the US. US law can't force another country to accept as a citizen someone born in the US.

Perhaps it's simpler to tweak immigration law to say that a citizen who gained citizenship by being born in the US is permanently ineligble to file an immigration petition for his/her parents. Or maybe this prohibition is waived if there is proof that the parents were not illegally present in the US when the child was born. But I don't think such a tweak to the law will have much practical effect.

[JohnK 0]

But if you deny citizenship to children born in the US of illegal alien parents, then a birth certificate is no longer proof of citizenship.

That does not make any sense. If you don't give birth certificates to the babies of illegals then birth certificates are no longer proof of citizenship? Huh?

[lucyrich 20]

But if you deny citizenship to children born in the US of illegal alien parents, then a birth certificate is no longer proof of citizenship.

That does not make any sense. If you don't give birth certificates to the babies of illegals then birth certificates are no longer proof of citizenship? Huh?

A birth certificate is just that. It's proof that a birth occured. The laws require the local recordkeepers to record all births, so citizen or noncitizen will always be able to get a birth certificate showing when and where the birth happened.

But some people are proposing to deny citizenship to those born here. If some people born here are citizens and some are not, then mere proof of when and where the birth happened is not proof of citizenship.

Theoretically, you could require the parents to provide proof of their citizenship when the birth is recorded and have some sort of notation of the citizenship status reflected on the birth certificate. But as someone who recently went through the process, trust me, not all parents will be able to deal with the paperwork during that stressful time. When the contractions are getting closer is NOT the time you'll want to be going to the safe deposit box to dig out mom's passport or birth certificate. Furthermore, it's probably not such a great idea to make the hospital people the judge of the validity of immigration documents.

If citizenship doesn't happen due to the place of birth, but only due to the citizenship of parents, then proof of citizenship can only be provided by proving the citizenship of the parents. US-born citizens would be like those US citizens who are born abroad to US citizen parents. Their birth certificate doesn't prove their citizenship; but they need to go through the paperwork of the "consular report of birth abroad" to establish citizenship.

[William33 110]

Have to say I agree with this. America right now has the ability to pick and choose the best and the brightest to come here. Yet, they'd rather give out Green Card via a lottery than to people who might actually give the country some value. Personally as someone who came here with a PhD and has served a US federal government agency in the 8 years I have been here, I am personally disgusted that the easiest way for me to get a Green Card was through my marriage to a USC, rather than through my profession.

Might have a hard time getting people here on board with restricting marriage based visa! I'm personally all for scrapping Green Cards for Parents and Siblings however, I just don't get why if I become a US Citizen, that should get my brother a Green Card, regardless of the wait, it just makes no sense to me. The only reason I can see giving Green Cards for parents is I guess if you want to take care of them in old age. Even given that I'll stick my neck out and say that I think Green Cards through marriage should only be given out to spouses and non-adult children.

Full agreement on all points!!

Edited April 9, 2007 by William33

[Caladan 19]

lucyrich nails it. On the original topic, legalizing immigration (more) won't stem the flow of illegals; the desire for work is doing that.

On the subject of visa fraud & quotas, I think they should kill the fiancé visa and divert the energy to spousal visas, tbh.

[Ban Hammer 14,091]

lucyrich nails it. On the original topic, legalizing immigration (more) won't stem the flow of illegals; the desire for work is doing that.

On the subject of visa fraud & quotas, I think they should kill the fiancé visa and divert the energy to spousal visas, tbh.

yes on the first sentence, but no on the second. do you really think a k-1 visa is the only fraud that occurs?

[JohnK 0]

A birth certificate is just that. It's proof that a birth occured. The laws require the local recordkeepers to record all births, so citizen or noncitizen will always be able to get a birth certificate showing when and where the birth happened.

OOOOH I see. Sorry, I had a brain fart.