Report: Bill would set an 8-year path to residency

Originally Posted by rapier7

You think I'm kidding? I was born in Beijing. I came here when I was 3. I am literally a first generation immigrant. I'm very grateful for the fact that I was able to come to the US and begrudge no one the ability nor desire to do the same.


How are we rewarding them? We're granting them a reprieve. They can finally come out of the shadows and stop being preyed upon by people who exploit their illegal status. I don't blame anybody for wanting to move from a poor country to a rich country. That kind of thing should not be illegal.


My parents vote Democrat and they support comprehensive immigration reform. Plus do you realize how stupid you sound? How is my argument the "**** you, I got mine" argument? That's YOUR argument. I want them to come. Every one. Let them come and stop forcing them to wait years and spend thousands of dollars before being granted immigrant visas. AND I want the illegal immigrants currently here to have a chance to live life as Americans.

If we just let anyone and everyone into our country, it would crumble rather quickly.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

It's not a law yet. Once people know they can just come here illegally, you really think people are going to pay lawyers and wait in their sh!tty situations for years when they can just come here and get on the gravy boat like everyone else?

A similar law was passed that granted illegals amnesty 27 years ago, you pillock!!

If such a law was going to stop people from paying lawyers to get in to the US, that would have happened 27 years ago and it didn't. Go ask your own freakin mother. For cryin out loud.

Like I said,
"Illegal amnesty happened once and that it could happen again."

Obviously you aren't familiar with the use of the past tense. Past tense means it has already happened.

There currently is a path to citizenship, million and million of people are proof

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

If thats what you want, then you would be on Rubio's boat, not Obama's. They would need to PAY PENALTIES first. Then have a period of X amount of years where they would have a permit to WORK and work only, and can not be convicted of any crime...THEN...after 7 years, they can get on the back of the bus. Obama is proposing NO SUCH THING. Your post earlier also didn't reflect any of this. We also don't want "all of them to come." We need a point system. People should have priority like any other decent country. Other than family, people are accepted based on the need of the nation (like Canada does.) You also seem to gloss over that Obama's plan has nothing to do with actually fixing the immigration issue, but rather get a bunch of votes.

You jump from one conclusion to the next. I don't think they should get "in the back of the line". Just pay some fines. We'll verify you don't have any felonies. And then you can get your green card or immigrant visa. And that puts them on a path to citizenship. If you do have a felony or an excessive amount of misdemeanors (let's say...3+), you'll get deported.

As for the bold....you do realize the majority of the earth's population is dirt poor right? So we should just blindly accept anyone without consequence just because they come from a poor country? 75% of the worlds population is either poor or oppressed. Surely you don't think that anyone should be able to jump over the fence and be granted "status" are you? What are they doing to stop another wave of 11 million more coming over the fence? I don't mind illegals having some sort of a chance, especially the children. However, saying "even though the first thing you did here is break a federal law, we're gonna forget all about it." That sets a dangerous precedent. What are we going to do with the illegals that have been convicted of a crime? Let them stay too?

Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind if another 11 million came over. And I do realize most of the world is dirt poor. I don't care. If they want to come over, let them. I don't think people who want to improve their lives are liabilities. I don't have a problem gutting welfare programs to prevent mooching. But I want everybody to be given the opportunity to succeed. It is so much easier to succeed in the US than any other country.

Obviously there is a limit to the foreign born population that we can absorb and assimilate in any given time. I just happen to believe it is vastly higher than what most people think it is. I wouldn't have a problem if we admitted 10 million new residents a year instead of the current 1 million we currently limit it to.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

If we just let anyone and everyone into our country, it would crumble rather quickly.

People are only liabilities if you let them become liabilities. They are assets in just about any other circumstance. In your kind of Malthusian thought process, when a cow is born, it's a cause for celebration. But when a human is born, it's just another mouth to feed.

But the US is not some magical land where we have it much better than we should have. People built this country and its wealth. And as long as we stick to American principles of relatively free markets, and free people, we're going to remain the most prosperous and powerful country on this Earth.

Every year, our government sends home THOUSANDS of au pairs (babysitters) who come to the USA with comprehensive educational backgrounds, degrees, and the desire to work hard and stay in this glorious country. As their visas expire, these qualified, intelligent individuals are sent packing.... WHY?

These individuals, who speak multiple languages (and are fluent in English) and are VERY well educated, are shipped back overseas and we're discussing legalizing millions who came here illegally, with little to no education, and who have NO interest in abiding our laws (as demonstrated by their first action in the country). Let's compare crime statistics between au pairs and illegals... perhaps education levels. Potential taxable income levels...

And the point isn't to just say "screw the illegals, bring in the au pairs".. but rather, to demonstrate a gross oversight in the intention, execution, and impact of this legislation. And let's be real, the only goal here is to buy votes from Latinos... it has nothing to do with being just.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

And let's be real, the only goal here is to buy votes from Latinos... it has nothing to do with being just.

Was it just 27 years ago?

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Surely you jest....they don't even know who is IN the country, and IF by some chance they actually schedule a court date, they don't even go after the person when they don't show up.

These are all separate issues. Yes removal is a wide net that doesn't catch everyone, ICE only spends resources tracking down and removing criminal offenders. That is entirely separate from USCIS which would process these amnesty visas.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Cubans are actually extremely educated, sharp individuals. This country would benefit from a few more Cubans.

Now that's a broad, useless generalization. There are smart hardworking people from every country and there are bums in Cuba too.

Originally Posted by JonJon

Why even bother securing (lol) the border?

Now they'll have a verified reward for coming here

Joke

Again, this is a retrospective benefit. You'll have to prove you were here at XX date in the past, I haven't seen anything offering this to "future" fence jumpers.

Originally Posted by rapier7

Obviously there is a limit to the foreign born population that we can absorb and assimilate in any given time. I just happen to believe it is vastly higher than what most people think it is. I wouldn't have a problem if we admitted 10 million new residents a year instead of the current 1 million we currently limit it to.

...
People are only liabilities if you let them become liabilities. They are assets in just about any other circumstance. In your kind of Malthusian thought process, when a cow is born, it's a cause for celebration. But when a human is born, it's just another mouth to feed.

But the US is not some magical land where we have it much better than we should have. People built this country and its wealth. And as long as we stick to American principles of relatively free markets, and free people, we're going to remain the most prosperous and powerful country on this Earth.

+1, the entire "stop immigration, but only after my family has gotten in" is terribly hypocritical.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

And the point isn't to just say "screw the illegals, bring in the au pairs".. but rather, to demonstrate a gross oversight in the intention, execution, and impact of this legislation. And let's be real, the only goal here is to buy votes from Latinos... it has nothing to do with being just.

Sure, run for office. The government caters to the sensational media/public appetite and it makes me sick.

I think we should do the following

1. Build a gigantic fence along the US/Mexico boarder and quadruple the boarder agents on patrol. We'll worry about Canada later.
2. Deport every last undocumented immigrant back to their home country.
3. ???
4. Profit.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

I think we should do the following

1. Build a gigantic fence along the US/Mexico boarder and quadruple the boarder agents on patrol. We'll worry about Canada later.
2. Deport every last undocumented immigrant back to their home country.
3. ???
4. Profit.

If you can secure the border, I'm all for amnesty. But until that happens, offering amnesty basically just encourages more people to come across the border.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

If you can secure the border, I'm all for amnesty. But until that happens, offering amnesty basically just encourages more people to come across the border.

There are two problems I find with this line of thinking:

1. It presupposes that immigrants are a net liability.

2. Based on that presupposition, it instead recommends protecting the privilege of those who already have legal status.

It's extraordinarily selfish and self-defeating logic.

Originally Posted by rapier7

There are two problems I find with this line of thinking:

1. It presupposes that immigrants are a net liability.

2. Based on that presupposition, it instead recommends protecting the privilege of those who already have legal status.

It's extraordinarily selfish and self-defeating logic.

But we KNOW that there is a net liability having an open border. Drug trade, illegals incarceration levels, etc... I know you are a great addition to our nation but you can't let your own circumstance cloud your judgement on the larger issue.... furthermore, even if you were to propose that mexicans (which is what we're largely talking about) aren't a net liability, their ability to easily cross the border poses obvious dangers to national security in an ever threatened world of muslim extremists.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Every year, our government sends home THOUSANDS of au pairs (babysitters) who come to the USA with comprehensive educational backgrounds, degrees, and the desire to work hard and stay in this glorious country. As their visas expire, these qualified, intelligent individuals are sent packing.... WHY?

These individuals, who speak multiple languages (and are fluent in English) and are VERY well educated, are shipped back overseas and we're discussing legalizing millions who came here illegally, with little to no education, and who have NO interest in abiding our laws (as demonstrated by their first action in the country). Let's compare crime statistics between au pairs and illegals... perhaps education levels. Potential taxable income levels...

And the point isn't to just say "screw the illegals, bring in the au pairs".. but rather, to demonstrate a gross oversight in the intention, execution, and impact of this legislation. And let's be real, the only goal here is to buy votes from Latinos... it has nothing to do with being just.

Something we agree on!

Originally Posted by rapier7

Quite frankly,

People are only liabilities if you let them become liabilities. They are assets in just about any other circumstance. In your kind of Malthusian thought process, when a cow is born, it's a cause for celebration. But when a human is born, it's just another mouth to feed.

But the US is not some magical land where we have it much better than we should have. People built this country and its wealth. And as long as we stick to American principles of relatively free markets, and free people, we're going to remain the most prosperous and powerful country on this Earth.

Don't say "quite frankly", that's annoying.

Anyhow, cows and people are not in the same category. A cow can not leach off the social system for it's life and give nothing in return. A cow is not required to pay taxes because it does not benefit from social services that the government provides. At least a cow at one point or another provides milk or goes to the slaughterhouse and gives back to those that spent time and money upbringing it. I understand your point though.

Originally Posted by rapier7

There are two problems I find with this line of thinking:

1. It presupposes that immigrants are a net liability.

2. Based on that presupposition, it instead recommends protecting the privilege of those who already have legal status.

It's extraordinarily selfish and self-defeating logic.

Take your emotions out of this. Life isn't fair as resdeq always says. Be grateful you live in the greatest nation in the world.

If you want to enter this country, step in line like everybody else. My grandparents did, it sounds like you did it, and countless other people.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

But we KNOW that there is a net liability having an open border. Drug trade, illegals incarceration levels, etc... I know you are a great addition to our nation but you can't let your own circumstance cloud your judgement on the larger issue.... furthermore, even if you were to propose that mexicans (which is what we're largely talking about) aren't a net liability, their ability to easily cross the border poses obvious dangers to national security in an ever threatened world of muslim extremists.

Those are fairly weak arguments. The drug trade and illegal incarceration levels are a function of the Controlled Substances Act (aka the War on Drugs). You could end about 90% of it if you legalized marijuana and cocaine.

If you look at net migration of illegal immigrants, it has plummeted to zero since the recession simply because the economy sucks. The reality is we have tens of thousands of miles of coastline and land borders. There is no way we can track everybody coming in and out of the country, especially if they are intent on coming in illegally.

By introducing a guest worker visa (which can be convertible to an immigrant visa) program, it ensures that all illegal migrants who come to this country seeking a better life through hard work will now come through illegal channels. That makes unauthorized border crossings more suspicious and more worthy of investigation.

My personal feelings toward immigration are undoubtedly positive. But from a economical point of view, immigration is a net plus. And I'm all about the economy. The only reason I feel the need to bring in my own personal situation is because of people who say "well I'm sure all the LEGAL immigrants are furious that these Mexicans cut the line!".

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Anyhow, cows and people are not in the same category. A cow can not leach off the social system for it's life and give nothing in return. A cow is not required to pay taxes because it does not benefit from social services that the government provides. At least a cow at one point or another provides milk or goes to the slaughterhouse and gives back to those that spent time and money upbringing it. I understand your point though.

Young workers, which is the overwhelming demographic that most of these illegal immigrants are part of, are not net drains on society's resources. An overwhelming percentage of government transfer payments go towards old people.

Europe is imploding because its workers are retiring faster than it can make new ones. The only reason why the US isn't in nearly as bad of shape is because of immigration, both legal and illegal.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

Take your emotions out of this. Life isn't fair as resdeq always says. Be grateful you live in the greatest nation in the world.

If you want to enter this country, step in line like everybody else. My grandparents did, it sounds like you did it, and countless other people.

There are 3 major periods of immigration in the US. From the founding of the Republic to immediately after WWI, there was an unrestricted immigration policy. Anybody who showed up was let in, essentially. Except for the Chinese, via the Chinese Exclusion Act, something that wasn't repealed until the 1940s.

From immediately after WWI (early 20s) to 1965, there was the national origins immigration system, which drastically limited legal immigration to those from "white" countries. And then from 1965 onward, after passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act, we have our current system.

Did your grandparents come here before the 1920s? Congratulations, they migrated during a period where official immigration policy was unrestricted. There was no "line".

Did they come here between 1920 and 1965 and were white? Congratulations, they migrated during a period where official immigration policy was favored for those of white European descent. They got to cut the "line".

In our modern day immigration system, there is no "line". Or at least, if there is a "line", even getting into the "line" is heavily restricted and only possible if you're rich, a celebrity, a proven genius, smart enough so that an S&P 500 company is willing to sponsor you, or have family in the US. If you don't fall into any of those categories, it is impossible to get into the "line".

It is infuriating for those people who know how the system actually works. And I haven't found a person defending the immigration status quo who wasn't either prejudiced, ignorant, or just plain unintelligent.

Originally Posted by rapier7

. And as long as we stick to American principles of relatively free markets, and free people, we're going to remain the most prosperous and powerful country on this Earth.

I've identified the problem. We're moving away from this, quite obviously.

Also, our government is intentionally not doing their due diligence and allowing people to come that would be a burden on the state. I can't recall the exact term for it, but there is a specific part of the law that states you cannot get citizenship if you can't take care of yourself. EDIT: A ward of the state, as per the 1996 welfare reform act

http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

Immigrant households' use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor's degree.

An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.

If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.

Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.

For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.

Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.

The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies

As Milton Friedman said "you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state"

Originally Posted by rapier7

By introducing a guest worker visa (which can be convertible to an immigrant visa) program, it ensures that all illegal migrants who come to this country seeking a better life through hard work will now come through illegal channels. That makes unauthorized border crossings more suspicious and more worthy of investigation.

This is a good solution, but we need to create a second class of rights that is not equal to citizenship/LPR, but is perpetual. The current path is visa/LPR/USC, but its not appropriate for everyone.

Originally Posted by rapier7

In our modern day immigration system, there is no "line". Or at least, if there is a "line", even getting into the "line" is heavily restricted and only possible if you're rich, a celebrity, a proven genius, smart enough so that an S&P 500 company is willing to sponsor you, or have family in the US. If you don't fall into any of those categories, it is impossible to get into the "line".

It is infuriating for those people who know how the system actually works. And I haven't found a person defending the immigration status quo who wasn't either prejudiced, ignorant, or just plain unintelligent.

This is just a sensational "chase" argument. Are you referring to H or L visas? if so, its perfectly reasonable for average workers to be sponsored and get a green card without having multi-million dollar legal fees.

Source: I have personally filed successful green card applications from visa to LPR for companies that employ 20-30 net income of only a few million a year.

Originally Posted by rohde88

This is a good solution, but we need to create a second class of rights that is not equal to citizenship/LPR, but is perpetual. The current path is visa/LPR/USC, but its not appropriate for everyone.

So you want a class of legal permanent residents that can't transition to citizenship? What purpose would this serve, exactly?

This is just a sensational "chase" argument. Are you referring to H or L visas? if so, its perfectly reasonable for average workers to be sponsored and get a green card without having multi-million dollar legal fees.

Source: I have personally filed successful green card applications from visa to LPR for companies that employ 20-30 net income of only a few million a year.

H-1B visas are expensive to file for and expensive to go through compliance. Most companies are looking at 10k+ in total costs. Employers who sponsor H1Bs reserve those for highly technical and specialized roles. You're not going to hire an HR generalist on an H1B.

L visas are also company specific. It has to specifically fit the needs of that company. And a company won't be willing to transfer one of its employees overseas to stateside and keep them here unless there is a compelling business case to do so. Most companies that file for L-1 and H-1B visas are huge multinational firms that can afford to do so.

Originally Posted by rapier7

H-1B visas are expensive to file for and expensive to go through compliance. Most companies are looking at 10k+ in total costs. Employers who sponsor H1Bs reserve those for highly technical and specialized roles. You're not going to hire an HR generalist on an H1B.

L visas are also company specific. It has to specifically fit the needs of that company. And a company won't be willing to transfer one of its employees overseas to stateside and keep them here unless there is a compelling business case to do so. Most companies that file for L-1 and H-1B visas are huge multinational firms that can afford to do so.

+1

As a huge multinational firm (Global Fortune 500) we do sponsor a lot of individuals for H-1B visas. But 99% of them are engineers who have skillsets that we cannot easily hire locally due to a talent supply shortage.

However, the cost is anywhere between $10,000 - $15,000. And we have a dedicated law firm handling all our US cases.


Unless you've got something that cannot be easily had you're not getting sponsored.


Edit: on a related note... there are only a certain number of H-1 visas issued each year and the quota for candidates is almost met already.

Originally Posted by rapier7

So you want a class of legal permanent residents that can't transition to citizenship? What purpose would this serve, exactly?

A class of workers that feel free to change jobs, live and work in the US, but do not get medicare/medicaid, voting rights, etc.

Originally Posted by rapier7

H-1B visas are expensive to file for and expensive to go through compliance. Most companies are looking at 10k+ in total costs. Employers who sponsor H1Bs reserve those for highly technical and specialized roles. You're not going to hire an HR generalist on an H1B.

L visas are also company specific. It has to specifically fit the needs of that company. And a company won't be willing to transfer one of its employees overseas to stateside and keep them here unless there is a compelling business case to do so. Most companies that file for L-1 and H-1B visas are huge multinational firms that can afford to do so.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

+1

As a huge multinational firm (Global Fortune 500) we do sponsor a lot of individuals for H-1B visas. But 99% of them are engineers who have skillsets that we cannot easily hire locally due to a talent supply shortage.

However, the cost is anywhere between $10,000 - $15,000. And we have a dedicated law firm handling all our US cases.


Unless you've got something that cannot be easily had you're not getting sponsored.


Edit: on a related note... there are only a certain number of H-1 visas issued each year and the quota for candidates is almost met already.

You both are so wrong it burns my brain. Yes its true that some H1bs fit this category you are talking about, it does not describe most of the tens of thousands of H1b workers.

I have personally filed dozens of H1bs without incurring a total cost of $15,000.

Base filing fee ($325)
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) fee
Small Company ($750)
Large Company ($1500)
Fraud Prevention and Detection fee ($500)
Public Law 111-230 (Special Fee – $2000) Only applicable if more than 50 employees

H1B Visa Cost – Small Company

For small companies (less than 25 Full time employees, cost of H1B visa application $1575 + Attorney fees for H1B.

H1B Visa Cost – Large Company

For large companies (more than 25 Full time employees, cost of H1B visa application $2325 + Attorney fees for H1B. Optional additional fees to USCIS for Premium Processing.

H1B Visa Attorney fees can be $800 or $2500. It all depends on the Immigration attorney and firm.

Typically small firm Immigration Attorney Fees will be less expensive.