Is it over for us?

lamonte

Registered Users (C)
Check out this editorial in NY Times (registration required):

http://nytimes.com/2004/01/03/opinion/03SAT1.html

I think that if they adopt, enact this legislation and drop it on INS's shoulders we can safely say good bye to any chance of I-485 going anywhere. Ever. I don't know what your plans are guys, but come spring I'll be practicing with my hoe in the backyard.
 
yep, and take up collective farming. o, the gall in legalhood!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For everybody's convenience, can somebody copy and paste the editorial in this board. I do not want to go thru that entire process of signing up. I believe many will share the same thought. Thanks a lot for the consideration.
 
Originally posted by lamonte

I think that if they adopt, enact this legislation and drop it on INS's shoulders we can safely say good bye to any chance of I-485 going anywhere.

Why ? I read the article... why or how does this effect us ?


Here's the article from NY Times:


President Bush is said to be preparing a list of principles for overhauling the nation's unworkable immigration policy. That is an excellent way to begin the new year — Washington has not made any serious attempt at reform since the Reagan administration. But a presidential wish list announced during a campaign season is not enough. The president has to convince some of his fellow Republicans in Congress that the system isn't working. American officials cannot keep pretending that 8 million to 10 million illegal immigrants do not exist.

A simple crackdown aimed at sending all illegal immigrants back where they came from would not work. It would simply drive people without proper documentation deeper into the shadows, where they would continue to be at the mercy of unscrupulous employers and would be afraid to report crimes, send their children to school or seek treatment when they had infectious diseases. Mr. Bush apparently recognizes the need to give them the hope of gaining legal status, undoubtedly by a slower route than is offered to those who have been following the rules and waiting their turn to enter the country.

Four years ago, the president campaigned on immigration reform, an idea that faded after Sept. 11 when immigration policy suddenly focused, understandably, on security. But immigrants, who have continued breaching the borders by the thousands, have posed a danger mainly to themselves: more than 490 died in 2003 trying to get here.

At a White House press conference last month, the president ruled out any "blanket amnesty," a policy favored by many in Mexico, the homeland of almost half of the illegal immigrants now hiding in this country. But there are hints that Mr. Bush wants a system that would give illegal immigrants who work an opportunity to get in line for legal status.

To win support in Congress, Mr. Bush is going to have to be specific enough to let lawmakers know that he is willing to take some of the heat for concrete steps that go beyond pious generalities. He might begin by looking at an intriguing bill offered by Senator John McCain of Arizona and two of his Republican colleagues.

It would create a Web site where employers could advertise jobs, and legal American workers would have the first shot at them. Then the jobs would be open to people trying to immigrate and to illegal immigrants already in the country. The bill would also create a new kind of visa that would give illegal immigrants the hope of changing their status by putting them in line behind those who have applied legally for residence permits.

The McCain plan has its limits. The workers who would be willing to take low-paying jobs might be the same ones who would have trouble consulting a Web site. And the bill does not deal adequately with the problems of legal immigrants' families. Many are stuck in limbo, waiting five years or more for legal status.

It may be that a grand reform plan — balancing security, cleaning up the immigration backlog and luring illegals into the system — will be too much to tackle in an election year. That does not let Mr. Bush and his Congressional leaders off the hook. They can easily make a good-faith start at immigration reform by enacting two excellent bills that already have broad bipartisan support.

One, called the AgJobs bill, would help 500,000 agriculture workers already in America earn a form of legal status. This bill has a blue-ribbon list of supporters: business and labor, Republicans and Democrats. The other, called the Dream Act, would allow illegal immigrants' children who have grown up in this country to pay in-state college tuition rates and earn a path to citizenship. This bill also has strong backing by members of both parties.

Presidential support would almost guarantee the bills' passage. It would also send a signal that the White House really understands the need to start untangling and repairing immigration policy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here we go...

What a crock of crap. AgJobs and Dream Act - rewarding illegal immigrants for breaking the law by allowing them to have status (and start collecting taxes from them) while not addressing the law-abiding immigrants' issues such as loooooooong I-485 waiting times (we are already paying taxes). It's all about money not humanitarianism. Only in America....

Rafiq :rolleyes:
 
Live and let live... Lets not be so focussed on our problems that we become insensitive to the problems of others.
 
What do you think is going to happen when the Congress authorizes 500,000 Ag visas with 3-6 month processing times starting, say, September 1st, huh? Where the people to process these cases will come from? They will from where they always come from - from "low-priority" cases without mandated processing times.
I'm not against your "live and let live" stance, but should not it be a two-way street?
 
Originally posted by lamonte
What do you think is going to happen when the Congress authorizes 500,000 Ag visas with 3-6 month processing times starting, say, September 1st, huh?

Does the article mention anything about 3-4 mnths processing times or are you just jumping to conclusions ?

The article does not say that these undocumented immigrants get green cards in a fixed period of time... they just get in the queue with the rest of us ,but with a legal status which we all have.

The bill would also create a new kind of visa that would give illegal immigrants the hope of changing their status by putting them in line behind those who have applied legally for residence permits.

The above clearly implies that politicians (at least some of them) realise that legal applicants should have priority over illegal immigrants.

If the AgJobs bill does get passed, it may just add the 500000 undocumented workers behind the rest of us , but still giving them legal status. Now what's so wrong about that ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's not forget that this is an election year, and anything could happen....let's hope it's for the better. Here's Sheila Murthy's take on the subject.

Quote murthy.com

History suggests that, since this is a presidential election year, major immigration legislation will likely be signed into law in 2004. We hope it is positive legislation, such as the AG Bill or the Student Adjustment Act, also sometimes referred to as the DREAM Act. Of course, if the tides turn, negative immigration legislation reflecting the fears and insecurities take precedence could take precedence.

Comments from Department of Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge in December 2003 seemed to imply that the Administration, including President Bush, may support legalization legislation during 2004. The scope and benefits will not be known until any such legislation passes both the U.S. House and the Senate and is actually signed into law by the President. We will continue to monitor Congressional action and update our pending legislation page on MurthyDotCom.

A recent and positive development released by The Washington Post on December 31, 2003, is that President Bush plans to unveil a new immigration reform package in January 2004. Coinciding with our aforementioned observation of the pattern in an election year, there are likely to be dramatic changes in immigration law. Citing unnamed sources from within the White House, the new immigration proposal is expected to focus on the guest worker program, improvements to the country’s tracking of border crossings, and easier ways for immigrants to work in the U.S. legally. This proposal is certainly a ray of sunshine on the immigration front at the beginning of the cold winter that was forecasted!
 
They will get in line behind us, yes, but first they will have to be issued visas and that is a completely different category which I bet that would take priority over i-485's. The processing times will be mandated 'cause it's an election year bill, catered to specific group and some quick outcome will be required to appease them. Remember - Latino voters look for amnesty, in the form of Gutierrez bill or some other. This Ag bill likely won't be enough for them.

... balancing security, cleaning up the immigration backlog and luring illegals into the system — will be too much to tackle in an election year. That does not let Mr. Bush and his Congressional leaders off the hook. They can easily make a good-faith start at immigration reform by enacting two excellent bills that already have broad bipartisan support...

And it seems backlogs won't be on the table. But you're correct of course - we'll know soon enough. I just suspect we won't like it when we see it. My main point is that any immigration reform will cause new strain on INS, and we're the weak link. Remember religious workers bill sunset? What did cost us - 2-3 months?
 
Originally posted by frodo
Quote murthy.com

...We hope it is positive legislation, such as the AG Bill or the Student Adjustment Act, also sometimes referred to as the DREAM Act...

What I think needs to be understood is that good immigration legislation/policy is not necessarily good for all immigrants.
 
Insensitive?

While I respect your "live and let live" stance, I do beg to differ on our "focus of our problems" and "insensitivity to the problems of others" since illegal immigration is partially responsible for the situation we are in now and America's view and misconceptions (Lou Dobbs, et. al.) on immigration.

With respect to unlawful immigration, for example, Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had the service centers, that already had staff shortages, search 2 years back on applications to ensure the approvals went to right people and not to terrorists. While a neccessary and prudent act, this left few to none adjucators to work on current applications. Lamonte pointed out the IIO shortage problem earlier. Another example was the inceasing of application fees which was supposed to be used to help train new IIOs but the fees were misappropriated and were instead used for increased border patrols of the US/Mexican border where the majority of illegal immigrants come from. The processing times did not shorten, did they? No, they grew longer.

With respect to sensitivity, breaking the law is breaking the law. If the AgJob or Dream Law were to pass, this essentially would be telling the would-be illegals that it is OK to sneak into the US illegally since you may get status in one way or another. This also encourages people who would normally have invested time and energy in a legal route to take the easy illegal route. This is clearly the wrong message.

When you look at the whole picture, what is the US's incentive to grant status to illegals? Considering the number of illegals in the country, the US could only benefit if they could collect taxes from them. This was the incentive in 1986 amnesty during the Reagan administration. Sadly, I believe this is the motive for such laws.

Rafiq
 
I agree "breaking the law is breaking the law". But some laws do not justify the punishment. I still do not think we should condemn those millions of illegals to continue leading the sort of lives they live, with the perenial fear of being deported and/or exploited

The fact of the matter is that they are here and they have a right to a decent life.

Neither you nor I have the right to pass judgement with a "Serves them right" sort of attitude. That's the job of Lou Dobbs and other misguided fools. Everything is relative. Just as Lou Dobbs is unable to identify with or understand our situation, we are making the same mistake with these illegals.

If my processing times increase by 3-4 mnths and that benefits millions of otherwise normally law abiding people, I would not mind.

Regarding the motivation behind all those bills, we too are a product of the system. We wouldnt be here if the US govt did not have a vested or monetary reason for bringing us here. That's how things work here. There has to be a good business sense behind everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with d1203

There are people who have had the priviledge and opportunity to enter the U.S. legally. These are people who have money and education. They also come from countries that allow them the freedom to leave.

But some of these people aren't as lucky as you or I. They have no money. Because they have no money, they haven't had the opportunity to educate themselves and work in a particular line of occupation which is a criteria in order to receive certain visas.

They come from an impoverish land, a land with scarce opportunities, a land that doesn't give them much hope for themselves or for the future of their children and family.

Naturally, a person who wants to live in freedom and prosperity moves to a land of milk and honey, just like you and I. But because they don't have the legal means, how else can they enter? Do you think that if they had the means to come here legally versus illegally they would still choose to come illegally? I don't think so. It doesn't make much sense.

Sometimes, we have to have a little bit of empathy (put ourselves in their shoes) in order to have a little less hatred and bitterness. What we all need is a little bit more understanding.
 
my thoughts...

suppose you filed in employment based category and in those 3-4 months that you talked about, should you happen to lose your job and due to some reasons unable to get a same or similar job in a timely fashion and because of this ins denies your 485 and you had to pack your bags, would you feel the same way i.e., you wouldn't mind? if so, i salute you.
granted the above scenario may not happen easily, but that is the fear of us legals in employment based category. when considering their problems consider ours too. may be give a conditional green card that gives job flexibility pending security clearance or enact a law together with this law to give gc even if similar job is not met etc, something like that. please don't get me wrong here - i also have soft feelings. my point is similar to saying - "just because my family is poor i try to rob some money from you and feed my children" attitude is wrong. i am not saying these people are robbing from me, but it is affecting indirectly. so a proper solution would be do something that benefits all - but sadly this isn't possible always. however in this particular instance i am sure there is a solution that satisfies everyone is readily available.

Originally posted by d1203
If my processing times increase by 3-4 mnths and that benefits millions of otherwise normally law abiding people, I would not mind.

ps. edited the rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I solute you, tmc. You are honest and not like d1203 and r87, who are hypocrites. Can you give out breads to poors when you don't have yourself? No way!
 
Re: my thoughts...

Originally posted by tmc
- "just because my family is poor i try to rob some money from you and feed my children" attitude is wrong. i am not saying these people are robbing from me, but it is affecting indirectly. so a proper solution would be do something that benefits all - but sadly this isn't possible always.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a American , born and brought up here in the US and without a job for 2 yrs. How do you think he feels when he sees people from other countries going to work everyday, while his family starves ? If we cannot understand the plight of fellow immigrants (legal or otherwise) why do we expect understanding from BCIS or Lou Dobbs or all the others who engage in immigrant bashing ? Arent we in the same position, indirectly robbing from unemployed Americans and feeding our families ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Re: my thoughts...

Originally posted by d1203
Arent we in the same position, indirectly robbing from unemployed Americans and feeding our families ?

Hell, no! Show me a person who was looking for 2 years and found no job at all. Do you really believe this yourself?
As to your comment on 3-4 month wait, I guess it depends how much longer one does have to wait. My ND is such that I'd consider myself lucky if my case is processed by the end of '05, and 3-4 month this year will easily translate to 9-12 two years down the road. In any case, it looks like they're going to announce the day after tomorrow http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration&cid=544&ncid=716 and thankfully so far it looks like it may be just an election-year stunt by Mr. Rove.
 
Re: I agree with d1203

Originally posted by r87
Naturally, a person who wants to live in freedom and prosperity moves to a land of milk and honey, just like you and I. But because they don't have the legal means, how else can they enter? Do you think that if they had the means to come here legally versus illegally they would still choose to come illegally?

Are you saying that the ends justify the means?
 
Re: Re: Re: my thoughts...

Originally posted by lamonte
Hell, no! Show me a person who was looking for 2 years and found no job at all. Do you really believe this yourself?

If you read the news , you'll know that there are people who have been unemployed for more than a year (which is why Bush had to extend the uemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 52 weeks) Read DOL's unemployment report. I personally know of a single mother who's been without a job for 12 months. Is 12 months a period of lesser pain ?

This woman chose to give up her job , during lay offs at a client that I worked in , to save the job of a H1B visa holder whose 485 had been pending for less than 180 days.

When I meet people like her, my waiting a extra 3-4 mnths seems rather trivial.

Here's some more cold statistics for you...

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jun/06012003/Business/61757.asp

Everyone's so focussed on their own problems that they are totally blind to what others are going through. We are all in this together, legal or illegal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top