Should immigration be legalised and faster to stop illegal immigration ?

[KarenCee 3]

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.

But what about regular people like me...and my husband. We're not "high value"...nor do we have high net worth. My husband would not be considered either of those yet his worth is FAR more than mere money, assets, and education. Yes I have been to the Immigration Canada page. I want to emigrate TO Canada and my husband wants to go home again someday. Yet I haven't a high net worth or high assets. My education is not what I feel many would consider as high value either. However, I plan on living in Canada and contributing to their tax system as well as a member of society. Does that make me less desirable since I have not the wealth nor the high value education that you suggest as desirable? We are ALL on here to bring our beloveds through marriage. You have done the very same thing that you say the US should NOT do. Am I misreading what you've posted? Where does all that leave regular ol' me?

[mawilson 2,133]

Am I misreading what you've posted? Where does all that leave regular ol' me?

You can apply as a family member, no?

I imagine most Mexicans crossing the border don't have a U.S. citizen ready to petition them.

[Heracles 417]

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

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

based on opinion or what?

[KarenCee 3]

Am I misreading what you've posted? Where does all that leave regular ol' me?

You can apply as a family member, no?

I imagine most Mexicans crossing the border don't have a U.S. citizen ready to petition them.

This was what I found today. Someone posted this reply to me when I asked what was the procedure for me to emigrate:

Basically, at about a year or so before you are ready to move, your husband and you will fill out paperwork to get you into Canada as a permanent resident. They have changed the paperwork so that now you have to CLEARLY PROVE your intent to move back to Canada - so you have to show something like a signed lease on a NS property, or a job offer, school admissions etc.

Anyway, you fill in the application and send them to Buffalo. Buffalo will let you know if you fulfill the requirements and then forward to CSC for the "final determination". Once they approve the application, you just land up in Nova Scotia - pretty simple, except for the proving intent part, which is hard to plan since you don't want to sign a lease six months before your move, when the actual approval might come a year later!

You can do a medical check (around US $400) before you send in your paperwork, or wait till they ask you to go in for your medicals - they are valid for a year.

You can find all the forms, paperwork needed etc. in the CIC website. They will also tell you how long it currently takes for them to process the application.

Edited April 10, 2007 by KarenCee

[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.

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

Nope, but it's a pretty easy one to abuse. Either on the fraud front ("only have to put up with the old American schmuck for two years and then leave!") or on the lets-get-to-know-each-other-oops-I'm-on-my-third-petition front.

It's also one where closing down the fiancé option doesn't hurt any legitimate couple. If you're honestly ready to get married, you can do it in the person's home country.

[Scott & Lai 12]

It's also one where closing down the fiancé option doesn't hurt any legitimate couple. If you're honestly ready to get married, you can do it in the person's home country.

Some of us wanted the choice of getting married here. Wanting that in no way means we weren't honestly ready to get married.

[Velvettt 0]

Two points:

1st- A birth certificate can be one of two kinds: citizen and non-citizen. Other countries do it. As someone said, a birth certificate is just that -- proof of birth. So how about not issuing a "citizen" birth certificate unless at least one parent can prove citizenship first? Birth certificates are not issued instantly on birth, after all. There's time for the excited, hysterical parent to go home and dig up the passport or birth certificate, etc., before the paperwork is processed.

2nd: Another amnesty would be very difficult in repercussions at this point due to the president's signed agreement with Mexico regarding SS. Under the recent agreement, any illegal alien granted amnesty and then citizenship would automatically get SS benefits for him/herself and EVERY family member, regardless of location. Think of it... 12 million illegals and all their family members qualifying for SS benefits.

[homesick_american 1]

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.

There wouldn't be any logistical problems at all. How do you think British people prove their citizenship? They do it with a passport. No fuss, no muss.

[homesick_american 1]

2nd: Another amnesty would be very difficult in repercussions at this point due to the president's signed agreement with Mexico regarding SS. Under the recent agreement, any illegal alien granted amnesty and then citizenship would automatically get SS benefits for him/herself and EVERY family member, regardless of location. Think of it... 12 million illegals and all their family members qualifying for SS benefits.

Holy cr@p, is that true?!?!?!??!?! That's reason enough right there NOT to do it.

[Heracles 417]

2nd: Another amnesty would be very difficult in repercussions at this point due to the president's signed agreement with Mexico regarding SS. Under the recent agreement, any illegal alien granted amnesty and then citizenship would automatically get SS benefits for him/herself and EVERY family member, regardless of location. Think of it... 12 million illegals and all their family members qualifying for SS benefits.

Why would any government accept a condition like that.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Infidel

[Ban Hammer 14,283]

It's also one where closing down the fiancé option doesn't hurt any legitimate couple. If you're honestly ready to get married, you can do it in the person's home country.

sometimes getting married in another country is more hassle, sometimes less of a hassle.

along with the possiblity of the usa not recognizing it as a valid marriage.

Edited April 10, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Caladan 19]

It's also one where closing down the fiancé option doesn't hurt any legitimate couple. If you're honestly ready to get married, you can do it in the person's home country.

sometimes getting married in another country is more hassle, sometimes less of a hassle.

along with the possiblity of the usa not recognizing it as a valid marriage.

Is there somewhere where the U.S.A. doesn't recognize a legal marriage?

Canada manages to make it work. I'm not saying that the fiancé visa is awful, but it's certainly more expendable than the visas, which people were talking about getting rid of, for parents and family.

[Ban Hammer 14,283]

Is there somewhere where the U.S.A. doesn't recognize a legal marriage?

there might well be.

[Caladan 19]

We'd need more than that. Seems people manage to get sufficient documentation from everywhere on the planet, judging from the K-3s granted, no matter the poverty of the country.

[Dr_LHA 3]

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

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

based on opinion or what?

Based on understanding the constitution. Perhaps you should read it some time. The constitution is one of the greatest things about America. Those who are so willing to discard it or call it old fashioned are idiots at best, traitors at worse.