School Paper - Should illegal immigrants (documented and undocumented) be given pathway to US Citizenship?

[Mr. Data 26]

9 hours ago, br9k said:

I think on this forum the only answer you can reliably get is "I got mine"  

 

FWIW - I feel that anyone that wants to live anywhere should be able to do so, legally. Immigration is, by and large, not a "zero sum" game. It's good for everyone (but it will, in short to medium term, inevitably, create the usual human tensions and bring out the worst in some). Less artificial controls and more simple, welcoming, immigration laws would be better for all of us. After all, if no one is "illegal", we would not have to be dealing with what we deal now. 

"Anyone can live anywhere" would be an existential catastrophe for developed countries.

 

And the forum is only saying "I got mine" if the meaning of that phrase is "we spent thousands of dollars and years of our lives to do this the right way, why should other people get to just break the law and skip all that process and get away with it?"

Edited April 19, 2019 by Mr. Data

[Mrsjackson 300]

To answer the OP - maybe your topic should be whether or not there should be a pathway to citizenship for children who entered illegally, but who obviously had no choice in the matter. Research DACA. Adults who enter the US illegally should not then have a pathway to citizenship. 

[Mike E 11,730]

"Documented illegal immigrant". A new one on me.

 

Anyway, let illegal immigrants adjust their status after the last AOS is done. I believe there are Indians on H1Bs with a 100+ year wait.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

1 hour ago, Mr. Data said:

"Anyone can live anywhere" would be an existential catastrophe for developed countries.

 

And the forum is only saying "I got mine" if the meaning of that phrase is "we spent thousands of dollars and years of our lives to do this the right way, why should other people get to just break the law and skip all that process and get away with it?"

That is the only "I got mine" type of thing I see here on VJ on a consistent basis. 

[treppenwitz 78]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

"Documented illegal immigrant".

The following don't have lawful status but do have either deferred action, temporary protection, etc:

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
• Temporary Protected Status
• Deferred Enforced Departure

But the above definition technically also includes applicants (including those that entered with dual-intent visas; e.g. K-1) with pending AOS. These individuals don't have lawful status but "authorized stay" allowed by the US Attorney General. This is moot since this subgroup does have a path to GC (obviously).

[treppenwitz 78]

15 hours ago, POA said:

If there is already a way to do that without an employer and/USC

There isn't a path for the supermajority of these individuals. A few qualify and receive U or T visa status; that is a path to GC. But there is a major backlog for U and T status since there is a yearly cap of 10,000 U visas and a cap of 5,000 T visas. If I'm not mistaken the backlog for U status is currently about 5 years.

 

Unsolicited trivia: the U status pathway is what rapper 21 Savage is attempting https://cis.org/Cadman/Strange-Case-Rapper-21-Savage-Shows-Weakness-U-Visa-Petitioning-Process

Edited April 19, 2019 by treppenwitz

[CEE53147 559]

I hope you choose a different topic as the person grading the papers may unconsciously allow his/her opinions to influence your grade.  The topic is just too "hot" at this time.

[br9k 23]

Very much expected collection of responses  

 

FWIW, I came here legally, and followed the rules to become a USC many moons ago. I did this not because I feel that this is some "moral imperative" (it hardly can be, considering the lessons of history of this country, or indeed the world, as a whole), but because it was the best path for me.

 

Those who "got on the bus" first get to set their (arbitrary) rules for those who want to get on next. That's just how it is. There is no need to sugarcoat it or pretend that there is a greater degree of fairness or justice in doing so. It's a (mostly misguided, and thinly veiled) attempt at protectionism. It also does not work, but human nature is not about to change.

[CEE53147 559]

6 hours ago, cyclone27 said:

No pathway nor should there ever be.

 

Anyone who has done things the legal way will tell you that anyone who skips the line deserves a not so welcome from the USA.

 

1. Limit family need visa to spouses and children under 18.

2. No adjustment of status from tourist visa.

3. Birthright citizenship only exists if you have 1 US citizen parent at birth.

4. Make crossing the border illegally a criminal offense and subject to a prison stay with immediate deportation once sentence is served.

 

 

 

I would like to add another category to a green card - an open lottery similar to the diversity visa lottery with no requirements on education or skills . Allow anyone over the age of 18 (or 21) to register good for 5 years.  Lottery winner, spouse and underaged children would be allowed to enter after medical and background checks.  At this time there is no way other than family reunification for an uneducated person to immigrate legally.

[Mike E 11,730]

25 minutes ago, treppenwitz said:

The following don't have lawful status but do have either deferred action, temporary protection, etc:

• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
• Temporary Protected Status
• Deferred Enforced Departure

But the above definition technically also includes applicants (including those that entered with dual-intent visas; e.g. K-1) with pending AOS. These individuals don't have lawful status but "authorized stay" allowed by the US Attorney General. This is moot since this subgroup does have a path to GC (obviously).

Lol. 

 

Well my wife, waiting for AOS which was filed before her K-1 expired  is neither an illegal immigrant nor does she have a not/non/un lawful status.  But if you think so, cite the law and section thereof.  

[Unlockable 7,309]

26 minutes ago, br9k said:

Very much expected collection of responses  

 

FWIW, I came here legally, and followed the rules to become a USC many moons ago. I did this not because I feel that this is some "moral imperative" (it hardly can be, considering the lessons of history of this country, or indeed the world, as a whole), but because it was the best path for me.

 

Those who "got on the bus" first get to set their (arbitrary) rules for those who want to get on next. That's just how it is. There is no need to sugarcoat it or pretend that there is a greater degree of fairness or justice in doing so. It's a (mostly misguided, and thinly veiled) attempt at protectionism. It also does not work, but human nature is not about to change.

Understood.

 

But how would anybody in the world should be able to live where they please that you previously mentioned be possible? Or do you believe it should be that way but understand that it is not feasible?

 

Because last report (at least from 2017) is that there are still 3.5 billion in the world that live in poverty. If you combine the population of all the developed (or 1st world) countries, it equals to less than 800 million. So there are 4 times more people in poverty that would seek to have a better life if everyone in the world could simply live where they please. There would be huge exodus by the hundreds of millions of people to come to 1st world countries. Like I said, the economical impact would be huge.

 

And that is just the economical impact of it. There is still the social aspect complete global open borders. There are still countries where the society gives no rights to women, there still countries where a man can marry multiple women, there are still countries where underage marriage to older men is acceptable, and there are still countries where slavery is still acceptable. Not to mention the countries that  continue to have civil and religious wars.  How are you going to convince people from these countries to change their ways?

 

The truth is that there are options for many immigrants, but the difference is that every country has put rules in place to protect its beliefs, laws, and society. Because of this there will be many people who will not qualify to be a part of a country's society.

 

Edited to add link to world poverty data.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day

Edited April 19, 2019 by Unlockable

[NikLR 13,220]

3 hours ago, Mike E said:

"Documented illegal immigrant". A new one on me.

 

People who overstay visas are exactly this.  Documented.  Entered legally.  But that doesnt make their current presence legal.  Thus they are illegal aliens.

 

Undocumented means they entered without inspection. 

 

Or you can take it to mean every DACA pr even anyone who has applied for asylum but a decision hasn't been made.  

 

For the OP: personally I feel a path to LPR for DACA with the inability to petition anyone.  

[treppenwitz 78]

28 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Lol.

As mentioned, it's moot.

28 minutes ago, Mike E said:

cite the law and section thereof.  

But I'll appease you: Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 237(a)(1)(C)

It has a huge gap since only aliens who are in a currently valid nonimmigrant status, or who are lawful permanent residents, are clearly not deportable under this section. The gap includes K-1s with pending AOS that have an expired I-94. The US Attorney General solves this by allowing all AOS applicants a period of "authorized stay."

Edited April 19, 2019 by treppenwitz

[Ontarkie 13,980]

~~moved to Off Topic, from US Citizenship General Discussion- The OP is not asking for help with the N400 process~~

[TBoneTX 43,535]

LPR potential for law-abiding (in every way) DACA kids with this firm provision:  "Sure, kid; you can apply for your green card... if you turn in your illegal parents for deportation."