Used to be broken

Well if you get an automated system, you don't necessarily get a problem free system, you just get a whole new set of problems to overcome. What seems to be the biggest problem with USCIS and the Consulate system is the lack of a knowledgeable person when an issue arises and a path to correct the issue. Creating more technological barriers might not be the answer, or less people in employed positions to deal with them.
If everything is online when the systems locks up, melts down or there are internet issues processing stops. Not sure that is desirable either. What about when the system "deletes" your entire file? What then, do you start all over?
I do think it is possible for the USCIS to scan and upload the packet and that would cut down on the amount of mailing files anywhere. I also think having Alien files in a central database would help consulates make decisions on questions they have and cut down on delays in certain types of applications.

Your Congress critter inquired at about the time your petition was ripe for approval, thus creating the illusion in your mind that they actually "did something" which perpetuates the myth that congressional 'intervention" in a case where there is nothing wrong than the normal ebb and flow of excess petitions in the system can actually effect a positive outcome.

I tried to watch that video but after the first 40 seconds, I had a mad urge to bang my face into a brick wall. lostinblue.. you post disturbing video in a public forum, SHAME on you. May a sick Yak leave a deposit in your sock drawer.

Sorry, hit reply before I typed
I rarely say this, but it might be one of those rare instances where contacting your Senator might actually be helpful.
It sounds like from what you are saying that USCIS has sent this off to the fraud unit for some reason, or as you mention the July 2001 date and they think he was here, they may in fact have inadvertently merged two files, or did some kind of security check and his name came up .. which is fairly common in that part of the world for same-name hits. You can ask your Senator to have the immigration admin person in his/her office inquire and ask USCIS supervisor to review the file and make sure your file has not been blended with someone else's file at some point in the process. Give them the copy of the RFE where it says you indicated he was here in July 2008 as your "proof" they have mixed the files up.
Asking for the 8 1/2 x 11 Color photo sounds like they want to run it through facial recognition software...????
Or... it could be some RANDOM audit they do internally to "test" the system like IRS does and you just happen to be the unlucky couple.
4 page RFE ? Wow, is it single or double spaced typing?
Good luck

It is comnfusing, because you went to the interview, it seemed to go well BUT... you were inadmissable. Legally even if the consular thought you were swell and nice guy, he did some more checking and someone determined you were not eligible to receive a VISA, but you were eligible for a WAIVER of that inadmissability because you have a qualifying relative in the US, who I believe if I recall correctly is your spouse.
Since your VISA processing was interupted by the need for the waiver process, basically your paperwork from USCIS goes back to the Embassy and they "re-do" it. They go through the exact same procedure they would have if this was the first time they saw your paperwork. They may ask for another tax return, updated affadavit of support etc. Everything you initially needed for your interview is now going to be assembled and verified and then you will be getting an immigrant VISA. So my advice would be check with the Embassy, or go on the website and see what the requirements are. They may have changed slightly so find out now so there are no glitches.
I am so glad this worked out for you and I hope the rest of the "journey" involves no more detours.

Not a lot of experience here on the board on this type of waiver. But the key I think is nailing down what specific issue your dealing with. Wait about a week and see if they answer the email. Request a copy of the document your fiance got or have him scan it and email it to you.
Fast track this thing and get an attorney to request an advisory opinion on what exactly you are dealing with. You fill out a form that allows the attorney to represent you, he faxes or fed-ex, or emails it to consulate and you get some kind of response. You really can't fill out the form or submit evidence if you don't really know what the item they need addressed is. May be as simple as a shot record.. ?
Keep us posted.

You need to do more research on the I601, your step daughter is not a qualifying relative and no amount of good penmanship will gain her letter any consideration of her hardship if you have to leave. If she is going to write a letter have her explain how your leaving will create a hardship on your spouse. The only hardship they can legally consider is your spouses as he is the qualifying relative, any difficulty your step daughter has is only considered in so much as it causes hardship to your spouse.
Again, the form itself is just a form, the "proof" is the evidence in support of the assertions you lay out in your letter. The letter should be written by your spouse and offer his perspective on what hardships, emotional, financial, logistical, job related etc, he will face if you two are separated, AND why he cannot live in your country with you. Hint, if his ex-wife or mother of the child is in a joint custody arrangement then get her to spell out under no circumstances will she permit the child to travel to visit or live in your country. Even if there is no joint custody it takes two parents to allow international travel, and she can prevent it. Get a signed notarized affidavit from here to include in the packet.
Go to I2us.net read some approved and denied letters and the feedback they give on them to get a sense of what you are dealing with here.

I am starting this link as a place for people to START researching the I601 process and what is required once this is required in the Immigration Process. If you have links to research, attorney guides or discussions, HSL letter examples, or links to Embassy processing times post here.
To get the ball rolling here is an overview of what the I601 means by Shaw Peerally law Group.
I-601 Immigrant Visa Waiver Lawyers
What Is an I-601 Waiver, and When is it Required?
Some foreign nationals may be deemed inadmissible under INA 212(a), which covers bases including unlawful presence, criminal violations, and immigration fraud or misrepresentation. If a foreign national is considered inadmissible, then he or she must obtain a waiver of inadmissibility if they are seeking lawful permanent resident status. Generally, in order to successfully obtain an I-601 waiver, you must prove "extreme hardship" to a qualifying relative is moved to the applicant's country, and that the qualifying relative can't remain in the US without the applicant. These hardships are also weighed against "mitigating and aggravating factors."
Extreme hardship is vaguely defined as "greater than the normal hardship" that you would expect the relative to have if the applicant is not given a visa. "Normal hardships" such as the separation anxiety, missed income, and difficulty for the qualifying relative to move to the applicant's home country due to cultural differences, will not be enough to garner an approval on an I-601 waiver. One of the most typical factors supporting an argument of extreme hardship include the qualifying relative's medical/physical condition which wouldn't be properly managed if the applicant were away and if the relative had to move to the applicant's home country. Financial hardship is also a potential factor, but it must be framed so that it is clear that the qualifying relative's loss is relating to missing basic needs rather than merely missing out on a lifestyle improvement. Depression and compromising mental health is also a potential factor, but generally, if the qualifying relative has no history of depression to show that they are especially sensitive, this would be a weak factor. There are a number of other potential factors relevant to extreme hardship, such as any unusual country conditions in the applicant's home country making it difficult for the qualifying relative to live in the US, or certain obstacles in life which the qualifying relative can not overcome without the applicant gaining his or her immigrant visa.
Even if extreme hardships are established, if the mitigating and aggravating factors impact whether the I-601 waiver may be denied as a matter of discretion. Mitigating factors include duration of the relationship between the applicant and qualifying relative, whether small children are involved, whether the applicant has applied for the waiver voluntarily, and the degree of the applicant's culpability. Strong mitigating factors will lower the burden to establish extreme hardship. Aggravating factors include prior criminal record (regardless of basis of inadmissibility), multiple immigration violations, multiple marriages, absconding from deportation, and whether the qualifying relative immigrated to the US as an adult from the same country as the waiver applicant. Aggravating factors will increase the level of hardship that the applicant would have to establish. It is important to highlight the mitigating factors and address the aggravating factors in any I-601 waiver application.
How Long Does it Take to Process an I-601 Waiver?
Processing times vary depending on the consulate. In general, it takes 4-6 months, but in some cases it may take well over a year to process. For those applying at the USCIS Ciudad Juarez Office (also known as CDJ) under the pilot program for I-601 waivers, the waiver should be adjudicated within a day or two, however if the I-601 is not approved and referred for future and file review and adjudication, the processing time may end up being over a year.
Are there Risks to Entering the Waiver Process?
In some cases, the I-601 applicant will simply be residing in the US without being detected as inadmissible/removable, and chooses to stay. In such a case, the individual will have to weigh the problems associated with being undocumented (living in fear of potential detection, inability to get a drivers license, employment exploitation, etc) versus the risks of voluntarily entering the waiver process. Each person's motivations are different, and each person's likelihood of success in obtaining a waiver is different. Anyone considering the I-601 waiver process should make a well informed decision.
What is the Attorney's Role in I-601 Waivers?
In cases where the foreign national is living in the US undetected, the most important first step is to assess whether an I-601 waiver is worth pursuing. A qualified immigration attorney will be able to make a reasonable assessment based on the individual's unique circumstances. The attorney will work with the client to determine which arguments are strongest, and what kind of documentation the client may provide to support eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility. If necessary, the attorney will perform background research including reports on applicant's home country conditions. The attorney will ensure the quality of documentation, in particular, the affidavit of hardship made by the qualifying relative. The attorney will also draft a brief, if necessary, to organize the arguments and evidence so as to present a clear and convincing case that the application is worthy of approval. The officer who will review the application package will have to make a decision on the waiver in short order; therefore, a well-organized, professionally fashioned waiver application can make the difference between approval and denial.

The problem with quips like the above is they have to be taken in context.
yes it is true that "lots of people live with their spouses while filing waivers".
Does that make it a good idea in the OP case? THAT DEPENDS, how strong and how credible the hardship and supporting evidence are in the aggregate.
A better question might be, "is it a good legal strategy to live with your spouse in the country you are claiming on a notarized legal affidavit that you cannot live in?"
Or looking at the big picture is it a good financial strategy ..thinking forward to the I864 to go live somewhere you cannot earn a living? or more practically, in order to get an immigrant VISA for the spouse, they have to PROVE DOMICILE in the US. So for this purpose they have to have leases, etc in the US. Given the I130 is done in this case and the only remaining paperwork is the Waiver, its an expensive and counterproductive exercise to relocate overseas during this period. IMHO.
Bottom line, advice should take into consideration the actual circumstances that are particular to this OP, because to win a waiver case the overall case in its totality will be taken into consideration by the Adjudicator. If there is fine line between approval and denial a decision like this could tip in favor of denial, or trip them up and keep them out of the States longer due to lack of understanding of the impact of moving overseas.

Here is interesting Link.. Keeping the Green Card Valid...
She might be looking for this; *note advice on US Tax Returns
HOW TO KEEP YOUR GREEN CARD
This document describes certain precautions for U.S. permanent residents ("green card" holders) to take in order to maximize the chances of being able to maintain permanent residency status, i.e., "keeping your green card." Please note that the purpose of this document is to help law-abiding persons avoid common pitfalls that could cause them to inadvertently lose their green card. It is not intended for anyone who should not legally be able to keep their green card.
GENERAL RULE
It is very important to realize that U.S. Immigration law requires that a green card holder must NEVER abandon the INTENTION of continuing to reside permanently in the United States. Once, a green card holder abandons that intention, e.g., by intending to reside permanently in some other country, that person loses the right to keep their green card.
This means that ANYTIME a green card holder leaves the U.S., that person is subject to being accused by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.) of having abandoned the intention of living in the U.S., and is subject to having the greencard taken away--on the spot. Therefore, green card holders must always take certain PRECAUTIONS in order to be able to prove to the I.N.S. that they have never abandoned the intention of living in the U.S. permanently. However, simply returning to the U.S. once a year for several weeks to use the Green card is NOT enough!!! Many green card holders have lost their green cards--even though they returned to the U.S. once a year.
PRECAUTIONS
Consequently, it is very important that other precautions, such as the following, be taken:
1. OBTAIN A REENTRY PERMIT
* If you will be leaving the U.S. for more than one year, but less than two years, it is advisable to obtain a reentry permit prior to leaving the U.S.
* Note that if you continue to request a number of reentry permits (one after the other) the I.N.S. is likely to deny your application.
2. FILE TAX RETURNS
* ALWAYS FILE A U.S. RESIDENT TAX RETURN, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER APPLICABLE STATE, CITY, OR LOCAL TAXES.
* Be sure to file resident tax returns, e.g., 1040, and not a non-resident tax return!
* Note that this does not necessarily mean that you must actually pay U.S. income taxes, it only means that you must file a resident tax return and declare your worldwide income on that return, even if most of this income is exempt from taxation. Consult a tax adviser where applicable.
* Keep copies of all tax returns you have filed as a resident, and BRING THESE COPIES WITH YOU WHEN ENTERING THE UNITED STATES.
3. MAINTAIN A U.S. ADDRESS:
* Maintain a U.S. Address, even if the address is the home of a friend or relative.
* If possible, do not use "in care of" for your address.
* DO NOT have a U.S. address which is a resort or hotel.
4. MAINTAIN U.S. BANK ACCOUNTS
* You should leave open and continue to use U.S. Bank accounts.
* For example, some employers, when assigning an employee overseas, will continue to pay the employee in U.S. dollars, depositing the amount directly into the employee's U.S. account.
5. MAINTAIN U.S. DRIVER'S LICENSE:
* You should continue to RENEW your U.S. Driver's license.
* Be sure that the address on your license is the same as that recorded on any immigration documents.
* Carry your driver's license when entering the U.S.
6. MAINTAIN U.S. CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTS
7. OWNERSHIP OF U.S. PROPERTY
* If possible, continue ownership of U.S. property, e.g., houses, condominiums, businesses, automobiles, etc.
* For example, a person assigned abroad may want to rent, rather than sell, his or her U.S. residence.
8. DOCUMENT REASONS FOR LONG STAYS ABROAD
* EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS: Before leaving the U.S. on long assignments abroad, it is advisable to obtain a written employment contract, or letter, from your employer.
* The contract or letter should specify the terms and length of employment.
* If the employment will lead to a transfer back to the U.S., or to a U.S. based affiliate of the foreign employer, the contract or statement should include this fact.
9. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
* Be sure to maintain your social security card, and carry it with you on your return to the U.S.
* If you have not yet done so, be sure to apply for the type of social security card which permits you to work in the U.S.
10. SELECTIVE SERVICE
* For persons of applicable age, be sure to register with selective service.
11. KEEP YOUR GREEN CARD VALID:
* Be sure to renew your green card when it expires.
* Children who reach the age of fourteen (14) must file an application to replace their green card unless the prior card will expire before they reach age 16.
12. THINGS TO AVOID (which may unintentionally create the appearance of having abandoned the INTENTION of continuing to reside permanently in the United States):
* DO NOT return to the U.S. using any form of non-immigrant visa. For example, if you stay outside the U.S. for longer than one year, without having obtained a reentry permit, do NOT return to the U.S. on a tourist visa; instead, apply to the U.S. consulate for a Special Immigrant Visa.
* DO NOT arrive via a chartered air carrier where nearly all passengers are nonimmigrant.
* DO NOT return to the U.S. with a spouse and or children who are neither citizens nor green card holders, especially if they will be in the U.S. only a short time.
* DO NOT arrive at a port of entry functioning as a gateway to a resort area.
* DO NOT enter the U.S. on a round-trip ticket which terminates outside the U.S.
---------------------
NOTE: That even if you take all of the above precautions, there is NO GUARANTEE that the U.S. immigration inspector will not exclude you from the U.S. for other reasons, e.g., such as for committing a crime involving moral turpitude. The above information is intended solely as general reference information. It is not legal advice. Consultation with an immigration attorney is recommended. In addition, please note that Immigration Laws frequently change.

I think all one has to do to "get to the bottom of this " is take a look at the kid on the bike, and see that the "real issue" was not the flag flying per se, but that the flag made it easier for the bullies to find this poor kid and *e#t his ar$e. another nod to political correctness on the
schools part, they asked him not to fly his "freak flag" for his own personal safety.. but as usual its been taken out of context. Clearly his parents are CLUELESS as they are allowing him to single himself out for ridicule and harrassment by his classmates.
I read between the lines that the school was trying to protect a kid in an age group where children are vicious and deliberately cruel to anyone who is perceived to be "different'. This kid is having a one man fourth of July parade every day.. which is WEIRD and out of the norm which some of you find disturbingly patriotic.
Of course this is America and he is "free to fly the American Flag, the Mexican Flag or the flag of Satan on his bike.. but I strongly suspect if he was flying either of the latter two those who have supported his right to fly ANY flag in America.. would suddenly make a U turn and think of a million reasons he shouldn't.
This story is about a weird kid doing an odd thing and not some national patriot.

I think one need only spend a few hours on this forum to conclude that Immigration Law is not "simple" (see AOS from inside US discussions)
Cops should be doing Cop work and Immigration Folk should stick to what they know, you wouldn't call a HVAC guy to do carpentry work at your house would you?

There are plenty of attorneys with experience in I601 waivers. There is no reason to believe anyone telling you using an attorney will be an automatic denial. AILA is a good source to look for experienced Immigration Attorneys, some specialize in waivers. Laurel Scott has a practice dedicated exclusively to waivers. She is expensive but when you consider what the "stakes" are in this situation, it might be money well spent.
I certainly think in fact I know an approval can be obtained without an attorney, however having said that most of the people I know who have prepared their own waiver have spent about a year researching and preparing the packet. You have to submit the I130 first and then go through the NVC process so you have time to do research and get an education on the process.
While you may think you have "good arguments" to present in your waiver, its not the arguments that win the approval, its the evidence of the actual hardship proving your arguments are legitimate. You have to prove why it is an extreme hardship to live in the US without your spouse/fiance and why you cannot live with her in her own country. To be clear its not an emotional sappy story its a legal case, hence the reason many people employ an attorney to represent them and point them in the right direction in terms of collecting and documenting the hardship evidence and then making sense of that evidence in the legal brief that accompanies your letter and evidence.
As far as the time of processing figure how long it takes to get through USCIS and NVC, then the interview in the country your spouse will have the interview in. Not sure where Ukraine folks go to interview. Then you find out what jurisdiction the consulate or embassy your spouse interviews in is subject to, and they will have a sub-office that handles waivers. (USCIS website has this info) When you find that out, you can estimate based on other cases time in process how long it will take for the waiver to be decided. Processing times are all over the map, and so are adjudication standards. For example in CDJ Mexico they have a pilot program and a "triage" system where clearly approvable waivers are adjudicated in a couple days, those that are not clearly approvable are referred and take 6-12 months to be decided. London is taking almost a year, Athens, Moscow and Frankfurt are anywhere from 3-6 months.
I think to get some realistic sense of where you stand in terms of "approvability" you should spend the money to consult with an attorney. You should also spend as much time as you can reading AAO decisions on appeals, reading boards that have posted hardship letters, and posts of people that were approved and denied to get a feel for what adjudicators are looking at/for. The best cases and source of feedback are cases similar to your own, but also going through the same consulate which will be a challenge in Ukraine.

You are not "stuck" at USCIS. They had a problem processing your application because some documents they needed were missing or not submitted. you sent them in and they told you they are now working on your case and further that you should expect to see an answer from them regarding your petition somewhere within the next 60 days.
Your priority date at this point has nothing to do with this process, it just makes you eligible to file. Once the ball starts rolling the time it takes to complete the process is a function of how complete and accurate the application is, how long it takes you to respond to documents you did not send in with original application, and the administrative workload for ALL applications at the Service Center.
Good luck and I hope the rest of this process goes smoothly for you.

Bloggings On Immigration Law And Policy
by Greg Sisind
October 28, 2010
IMMIGRATION HUMOR: WHAT PART OF LEGAL IMMIGRATION DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND
A chart from Reason Magazine that says it all:
http://blogs.ilw.com/.a/6a00d834521fa969e20133f56b9b63970b-pi
Posted at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
LIBERTARIANS: TIME TO RE-LEGALIZE IMMIGRATION
Real Libertarians (not the faux-Libertarians like some of the Tea Party candidates making a lot of noise) have some pretty good things to say about immigration. Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released a statement this week saying the best way to end illegal immigration is to re-legalize immigration:
In debate after debate, Democratic and Republican politicians have decried the problem of illegal immigration, called for more border security and employer sanctions, and eagerly searched for evidence that their rivals employed undocumented help. The Obama administration proudly touts the fact that it is deporting more undocumented aliens than George W. Bush, while many of the families they support remain stranded in the United States, and most of whom were guilty of nothing more than the inability to satisfy a nightmarish bureaucracy.
***
For most of American history, immigrants streamed into this country, found jobs, and either stayed to build a life or returned to their native country if they couldn't. America was admired by the world and proudly displayed an ode to immigration on the Statue of Liberty, within sight of the major processing center at Ellis Island. We can and should return to that tradition.
"Every significant problem blamed on immigration in this country is either imaginary or caused by government. In Arizona, where illegal immigrants are being blamed for an increase in violent crime, violent crime has actually been declining for a decade, and declining much faster than the national average. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) commit crimes at lower rates than natives. If you're worried about gangs, then end the War on Drugs which funds them, just as it did the gangsters under alcohol prohibition.
"Immigrants are often accused of overloading the welfare system. This is again the fault of a government program. But the idea that welfare is a magnet for immigrants is a myth. In an ingeniously designed study by University of Hawaii Professor Ken Schoolland, patterns of migration within the 50 states, which have no travel restrictions between them, were studied. Schoolland found that were was, in fact, a very strong correlation between welfare and immigration: it was strongly negative. All of the states with the highest levels of government welfare benefits experienced net emigration to other states, and all of the states with the lowest levels of welfare experienced net immigration. Arizona, the current focus of anti-immigrant fears, ranks 46th in welfare benefits.
"Immigrants come here to work. Anyone who works and produces makes others better off. And unemployment and immigration actually are another two factors with a negative correlation. There has only been one decade in American history in which we did not have net immigration: the 1930s. If that is your idea of a great decade, you can have it.
"One unintended side effect of border crackdowns is to increase the number of undocumented aliens who remain because of the difficulty and cost of leaving and returning. Another is to create an 'underground railroad' that makes it easier for terrorists to enter without detection. The overwhelming majority of immigrants would love to come in through the front door. It is our bad immigration policy that has constructed the back door.
"It is time we stopped scapegoating the people who represent what is most admired about America. When the Libertarian Party was formed in 1971, we selected the Statue of Liberty as our symbol. We're the only political party that deserves it."
The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:
"3.4 Free Trade and Migration
"We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property."

You have asked this more than once and you have gotten the correct answer. NO she will not slip through the cracks, and you will make the situation worse if she attempts to LIE to the consular hoping they don't know she overstayed. Then she will get a misrepresentation charge, which will be even more difficult to overcome and puts the case under even more scrutiny.
There is a one in a million chance they will not have her record of previous entry and exit and overstay and grant her the VISA at the consulate. There is and even slimmer chance that she will get through the Customs station here at Point of Entry (POE). So lets say you hit the lotto and she did get by both the consulate the embassy it will eventually catch up with her on the Adjustment of Status, result in a deportation and finally the fraud charge because to have gotten this far she would have had to lie on the forms, so then she would not get to adjust and the mother of your child would be DEPORTED and then you would add deportation to the long list of problems you already have.
So, my advice is stop the magical thinking, learn about the waiver process, and get to work putting the waiver packet together. Its going to be expensive to hire an attorney and your child is being born in another country soon, if you want to resolve this as quickly as possible you should accept the reality and get to work on the solution. See below link for how to put together a waiver packet and what is considered a hardship under current law. Good luck
http://www.scottimmigration.net/I601Memo.pdf

This is just a fancy form of "insider trading" and "human trafficking" and I hope they nail Brewer to the wall for it. Government employees /elected officials colluding with Corporate profit seekers to manipulate a market and exploit aliens.

This is just a fancy form of "insider trading" and "human trafficking" and I hope they nail Brewer to the wall for it. Government employees /elected officials colluding with Corporate profit seekers to manipulate a market and exploit aliens.

Looking at your time line, I am confused as to what part was expedited? The interview? When will that take place?

Latimes.com
LOS ANGELES TIMES/USC POLL
Californians hold positive views of immigrants; most oppose deportation
In a recent poll of likely voters, 48% said immigrants are a benefit to the state, and 59% said illegal immigrants who have held a job here for two years should be allowed to stay.
By Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times
October 24, 2010
Advertisement
Repeated clashes over illegal immigration have marked the state's political races for years, but a new Los Angeles Times/USC poll found that voters hold positive views about immigrants overall and favor accommodating illegal immigrants who have held down jobs in the state.
Asked whether immigrants represented a benefit or a burden to the state, 48% of voters likely to cast ballots in November said they were a benefit, and 36% said they strongly held that view. Only 32% said immigrants overall were a burden to California because of their impact on public services, and only 22% felt that way strongly.
Separately, 59% of likely voters said that an illegal immigrant who had lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be allowed to remain here if discovered. More than 2 in 5 voters saidthey felt strongly that such an option should be available. Only 30% of likely voters thought the illegal immigrant should be deported, and only 19% backed that option strongly.
But views varied widely by political persuasion and age.
Liberals were most supportive of immigrants legal and illegal, with 75% saying immigrants were a benefit and 81% saying that working illegal immigrants should be able to keep their jobs. Voters under 45 agreed, with 59% saying immigrants were beneficial and 68% calling for illegal immigrants to keep their jobs rather than be deported.
Among conservative likely voters, 52% felt immigrants were a burden and 25% felt they were a benefit. Conservatives were the only group that leaned more toward deportation — by a narrow 2 percentage point margin.
Voters over 65 were more split, with 41% citing immigrants as a benefit and 36% as a burden. They also favored letting illegal immigrants keep their jobs, 55% to 33%.
By far the demographic group most supportive of immigrants was Latinos. Sixty-eight percent said immigrants were a benefit, a view shared by 43% of whites. And 76% felt illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country, a sentiment shared by 56% of whites.
The poll was conducted for The Los Angeles Times and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences from Oct. 13 to 20 by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican firm American Viewpoint. It included a random sample of 1,501 California voters, including 922 likely voters. Results for likely voters have a margin of sampling error of 3.2 points in either direction, with a larger margin for subgroups.
cathleen.decker@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqczNpLg9b8

I think you are 100% correct .. we should outsource the school system to Mexico just like we did with car manufacturing.

Actually it wasn't. As I am sure you are aware, when they were doing the raids the "bosses" cooperated with ICE , or in other words cut a deal. So they detained and deported the individuals the bosses went to great lengths to recruit and then the bosses were home by supper time. Of course they simply now just pay a fine, go get another few truck loads of illegals and get back to work.
I don't like the Big Government Republican Approach to this. If you strike at the source, and strike hard send a few dozen "bosses" owners and plant managers to jail and you will see an impact because the attraction "jobs' will be diminished. At least in theory. But we haven't been aggressive enough here because.. well white collar criminals are pampered in US. Obama has in fact stopped the raids, but is going after employers but until they start doing some hard time... we probably won't see much "change" in the demand for workers to exploit.
As far as "token" efforts look at total numbers trends of deportations, that simply isn't true. There is tremendous incentive, power and influence behind enforcement only mentality regardless of its effectiveness or the social consequences or ultimate cost to taxpayers. Its more open checkbook mentality brought to you by the Big Government Republicans, see Cornyn's comment in the original article that started this thread. "just tell us how much money you guys need to get this done".
I'm all for stimulating the economy but this is building a bridge to nowhere in the most insidious way. We get nothing for the cash, money down a rat role. How about taking these folks, putting them on road crews and fixing the crumbling infrastructure?
What we are doing now is billions of dollars down a rat hole.

There is some real compassion for you !
"The jury ruled that the city had violated his constitutional rights, and found two police officers liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress for failing to produce Newton's evidence when requested, the New York Times reported."
This guy was 27 when they threw him in the slammer for a crime he didn't commit, his formative years, in effect his youth.
They took 11 years to round up the DNA kit and test it while he sat and rotted for 11 years. What would it have cost them to hire a $7 an hour intern to spend a few weeks to dig it out of storage?
The award is Punitive .
How about we give you 100k to go sit in a jail with violent offenders for two years? I think you might have a markedly different perspective. He lost 22 years of freedom, can't put a price on that but 18 million is not enough.
This clearly demonstrates the problem we have with these rape kits in this country. Why the heck are they being stored and not immediately tested, there is millions of these things lying around untested.
It is more about preventing crime to get them tested than this type of thing but there is no excuse for the backlog and storage of this type of evidence in the manner its being handled.