11 minutes ago, RainbowMonkey said:

Thank you! Last time before he left for training he went to the legal office and ask for a power of attorney but they didn’t give him. We don’t know why. Do we need a lawyer if we’ll get a power of attorney off base?

Did he have an appointment? 

Is he AF?

38 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

No sources needed, it's just a fraction.  The potential number of illegal immigrants I mentioned above divided by the US population, roughly 328 million.

 

If you're asking about the 20 mil number, it's an estimate.  The 11 mil number is seriously flawed, in my opinion (and anyone who is familiar with immigration would do well to doubt its veracity.

 

If you'd like to read more, here is one article I found for you:  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

 

 

Thanks for sharing that article. It’s good to know the various statistical methods that have been used by different academic perspectives. Keep in mind though that all estimate derivations are predicated on assumptions & have limitations. Like was mentioned in the article, census estimates are subject to certain limitations, too.

For the study you cited, their assumptions were primarily based on 1990s migration rates when information on unauthorized immigrants was largely unknown. Furthermore, the assumption that illegal immigrants are more likely to keep returning after being deported is very conservative & does not reflect political conditions in the 2010s.

Replicating what they did on the specific data they used and on future data would add to the internal validity of their research. It would be important to consider all research with a critical eye, more intensely the ones using new methodology and haven’t been replicated.

19 minutes ago, DesertJason said:

I now know where the consulate is and downloaded the form to be filled out.  I appreciate the clarification of all the non-sense I've heard. 

You're welcome! I hear nonsense and rumors frequently from Filipinos. So, I just always go with calling the embassy or airlines myself.

8 minutes ago, DesertJason said:

 

It makes sense that the passport should be valid.

Check out the website or call the Philippine consulate assigned to your state. If the expired passport is still within a certain number of months, she may be eligible to apply for extension. 

I recently went through naturalization. And I know they ask you repeatedly at the interview if there is any change in the application. Marriage is a big change. I don’t understand why you would falsify information unless your naturalization approval was somehow tied to it... I can’t think of any scenario that would.

If you’re considering filing for your husband, I think that may bring up questions about the sequence of events. You “un-marrying” your spouse wont change the fact that you lied at your interview.

And furthermore, remember you’re filing married in taxes now. If you state you’re still single to continue this charade, you’re likely to be committing another crime.

This Tornado Loves you - by Neko Case

2 minutes ago, DesertJason said:

I ask because it would seem like if an immigrant wanted to go home, the TSA wouldn't say no. 

The passport is an identification document. And to identify — that’s the purpose of TSA.

Plus, the Philippines won’t accept her entry into the country without a valid passport or a consulate-generated travel document.

I did my signature. I was never told to print my name. I was naturalized a few months ago.

6 minutes ago, DesertJason said:

Isn't her passport still valid though?  Is the TSA going to tell her she cannot go back to the Philippines because her passport is not valid?

Yes, they could. TSA requires passports for international airline travel.

I traveled to the Philippines while pending RoC.

She needs a valid Philippine passport if she is expecting to be let on the plane. She also needs to bring her expired green card and the extension letter.

Yes, I would. My spouse was deployed when I submitted my ROC package.

My spouse always provides me a general power of attorney when he deploys. But, I don’t see how you can’t have a notarized letter of consent Valid for 1 year. Your spouse can have this done with Legal on base.

Escondido, CA

Snowshoe for a couple of hours

I was told it was still fall, but it’s so wintry & blustery today!

Maze Runner: The Death Cure

Blueberry cheesecake danish

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

20 mil divided by population.

Sources?

Generalizing people based on ethnicity is never a good idea.

33 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The question of the level of Immigration and which categories should be focussed and the needs of the Country is a very different discussion.

 

Canada for example limits family migration, so there are less incentives for someone to give birth in Canada as a future way to be able to move there through their children.

 

Why there is an assumption that people who want to give birth in the US would then wish to stay here illegally is beyond me. Would be interesting to see how the Canada figures compare.

 

 

I'm confused. Are you stating that the social and economic impacts of a change in the national policy (an amendment to the US constitution) is irrelevant to this discussion?

edit: re-reading it, I think you were responding to shiran’s comment

Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect charged with 44 counts

Robert Bowers, who has been charged with 44 counts, regularly made anti-Semitic comments on social media.

Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-suspect-charged-44-counts-181031174612815.html

Excerpt:

Quote

 

The suspect in a mass shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed 11 worshipers has been charged on a total of 44 counts, up from 29 counts previously, according to a federal indictment filed on Wednesday.

The charges against Robert Bowers, the suspect in what is believed to be the deadliest attack on Jews in the United States in recent history, include religious hate crimes, firearms charges and causing injury to police officers. Bowers is due to appear at a second hearing in federal court in Pittsburgh on Thursday.

Bowers reportedly made anti-Semitic remarks as he opened fire on worshipers inside the building, killing 11 and wounding several others, including police officers responding at the scene.

 

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Somebody is suggesting it would be backdated?

Again, here's the link for your perusal: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/trump-s-birthright-citizenship-ban-could-pose-risks-for-economy

Quote

Immigrants and their children are expected to count for 93 percent of the growth in America’s working-age population through 2050, according to a Pew Research Center analysis from 2013...

'The bigger effect would be just to turn more people who would be U.S. citizens into undocumented people,' said Jennifer Hunt, an economics professor at Rutgers University and former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. The impact 'would depend on what if anything replaced birthright citizenship.'

... One effect of the loss of legal status: locking second-generation immigrants out of jobs that require background checks, among other issues...

15 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

You are not an Immigrant if you do not have legal status, seems to be discussing illegals?

The subject of the article is the potential loss of legal status of birthright US citizens.

1 hour ago, Umka36 said:

Unfortunately we can't as the US has an agreement with Canada in which asylum seekers are required to file for asylum on the first country they enter. Smart move by the Canadians in my opinion. We have no such agreement with Mexico, and why would they sign such an agreement. It's no benefit to them.

Fascinating as I was not privy to the further nuances of asylum and refugee applications. By Cold War definitions (when the terms first world, etc. arose), Mexico is a third world country. With that understanding, I would presume that's why US can't enter into a Dublin Resolution-like agreement with Mexico -- of this, I am not really sure.

However, the "safe third country" and the "first country of asylum" concepts are not only applied between US-Canada borders, but to EU borders and other developed countries as well. This 2015 paper examines how the concept was applied in Spain, South Africa, and the US: http://www.unhcr.org/59c4be077.pdf

THE SAFE THIRD COUNTRY CONCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON REFUGEE PROTECTION ASSESSING STATE PRACTICE

Excerpt: 

"... These debates show that the “safe third country” and “first country of asylum” concepts were key from the beginning in the attempts to articulate the phenomenon of international cooperation to address secondary movements of refugees. More recently, debates hosted by UNHCR have highlighted that defining secondary movements, and with it, the assessment of States’ cooperation in relation to them, remain controversial..."

Perhaps, because economics isn't my strong suit, but I've found myself fascinated with reading articles with an economic perspective.

Just wanted to share...

Trump’s Birthright-Citizenship Ban Could Also Pose Risks for the Economy

Excerpt:

"One effect of the loss of legal status: locking second-generation immigrants out of jobs that require background checks, among other issues...

“Productivity is actually higher when people have legal status because you’re more likely to get the appropriate match for your employment,” said Jay Shambaugh... “If you make it harder for people to be in the United States -- especially high-skilled immigrants -- then you’re going to reduce innovation, output, growth going forward.”

And if the change discouraged immigration in the first place or spurred the children of immigrants to leave the country, the policy could weigh on potential gross domestic product. That’s because growth relies on two components: population growth and productivity. Both are already tepid in the U.S."

Link to complete article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/trump-s-birthright-citizenship-ban-could-pose-risks-for-economy

21 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

How accurate do you really think that number is?  About as accurate as the illegals who put themselves on the radar.  Do you suppose there are a number who successfully cross our southern border, and are not included in this 3.5% statistic at all?  Can’t remember where, but a few months back I saw an estimate that the actual number was in excess of 20 million illegals currently in the US.  That’s more like 6%.  

It would be interesting to know how that 6% estimate was derived.

My previous response applies to the above boldfaced quoted text. Here it is:

3 hours ago, lierre said:

It’s a best estimate. 

 

“The unauthorized immigrant estimates in this report are produced using a multistage method that first subtracts the estimated U.S. lawful foreign-born population from the total adjusted foreign-born population to derive a residual estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population. Then, the residual estimates serve as control totals in assigning legal status to individual respondents in the survey. The main source of data for 1995-2004 is the March supplement of the Current Population Survey, and for 2005-2014 it is the American Community Survey; both are conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau; see Methodology for more details.”

 

A quick read of the methodology would have been available in this link had you clicked it: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

The ACS numbers do not directly state foreign-born population born to immigrants, however it can be derived from the ACS data. It's a gnarly business --censuses and estimates derived from it.

And yes, there is always potential for under-reporting as the data collection itself has limitations, i.e. the use of address lists.  The ACS is a large survey however so it is statistically significant or is outside the margins of error. Statistics based on general populations are your best bet.