Hmmm...interesting how so many folks on the forum are so harda$$ about immigration law issues and how folks should "follow the law" as if immigration law were set in stone. But the exception allowing AOS that is the subject of the article is also "the law". And I for one can't really blame anyone or get my panties in a knot over someone taking advantage of a perfectly legal exception.
If you don't like exceptions generally, let's put it into context. Immigration law is not the only area of law with exceptions and loopholes. Compared to the coarse sieve that is the US tax code, immigration law is a hermetically sealed container. How ironic that the folks most angry about lax immigration laws are also the same folks in an uproar when the government tries to close out loopholes in the tax code.
I suggest everyone to be civil in their debate/argument. There is no need to use profanity if you don't like/agree with others' opinions. As for the subject of the debate then it's about immigration laws and not about any other laws of the United States. So comparing immigration laws with other laws to justify your belief/point makes no sense whatsoever.
And as we all know that US prisons are full of US citizens who committed/commit crime but talking about them or comparing the number of US citizen criminals with those who violate immigration laws is totally irrational when it comes to the topic of immigration because even though US prisons are full of law breaker US citizens, yet still fact is that immigration laws don't apply to US citizens. So comparing US citizen criminals with immigration law-breakers just makes no sense.
Talking about immigration matters as such is always a touchy and debatable subject without any ultimate winner. Both sides could have some good and bad theory/points/justification to justify their cause/point, but in my PERSONAL opinions-United States is a country of laws and laws should be obeyed and enforced.
Some people say that US is a country of immigrants, it's made by immigrants and it has a long tradition of embracing immigrants, which is true but very often people forget that United States is also a country of law as well. And just because US is a country of immigrants and has been embracing immigrants ever since then that doesn't mean it can and should keep on continue embracing immigrants. No country could remain prosperous if its population would be more than its resources; otherwise that country would fall out sooner or later which is so evident if see coast to coast across the United States. The prices of real estate are higher now compared to how much they were 10-20 years ago, insurance rates are higher than what they were a few years ago, schools+hospitals, playgrounds+pools+everything is overcrowded now than before. Everything is different for worse because we are overcrowded.
I think no country should make any laws if they are going to keep those laws only in the books without being enforced. Congress shouldn't waste taxpayers' money in making immigration laws. I mean it just makes no sense whatsoever to make a law when noone is going to enforce it. Thus, our govt. is the problem who doesn't enforce immigration laws but then they are very good in making laws. On one side govt. makes laws but on other hand they allow law-breakers (overstayed people, and those entered without inspection, and those who lied to govt., etc) to have their green card if they have a US citizen or LPR as am immediate relative. What does it mean-if you have an immediate relative who is either a US citizen or LPR then you are allowed to break the laws as you wish because you will be forgiven eventually. Is this right?
I personally see no difference in someone who entered here illegally and the one who entered with inspection but then overstayed. Why? Because they both violated and broke immigration laws one way or another. One broke it in the beginning by entering into the country without inspection; while other broke it later on by overstaying. The only difference is- the person who overstayed can get away easily and be rewarded if s/he has an immediate relative who is a US citizen who could sponsor him/her which is unfortunately not the case for those who entered illegally. This is our govt who is the problem by making a distinction as such. How come Congress can preach about "family unity" for those who overstayed here by rewarding them with a green card if they have a US citizen as an immediate relative but then they don't think about the "family unity" for those who entered into the country illegally? Do you think those who entered into the country illegally have no family here to be united with so to assume that the concept of "family unity" doesn't apply to them or it applies only to those who came into the country with inspection but later on overstayed?
To me, both are law-breakers and they shouldn't be rewarded for breaking our immigration laws no matter what. They should go back and stand in the line like everyone else. Who cares if someone has been here for 20-40 years and paying taxes and been a good person. If this person has been a good person then why s/he broke our laws at first place? Oh yes, people will talk about poverty, opportunity and all nine yards, but they seem to forget that regardless of their reasoning in breaking immigration laws, they are still law-breakers because they did break our immigration laws by overstaying here for their own purpose/motive.
Yes, immigration laws are civil in nature but that doesn't mean these laws should be broken or shouldn't be enforced. Saying that they want their children to have a good education in the US or they want to feed their children/family or to have a good life then I don't think it should be the reason to break any law. Would it be okay if I rob a bank or a grocery store because I want to give a good education to my children or to feed my family? If not then why is it different for those who break immigration laws when laws are laws...whether it's immigration laws or any other laws?
Believe me, those who enter into the US without inspection will NEVER choose to enter illegally if they could obtain a visa to enter here. It's just that those who were/are able to get a US visa to enter into the country are fortunate than those who enter into the country without a visa. But the one who overstayed on his/her visa is no different than who entered into the country without a visa. Then why US govt. treats the latter one differently? Both are law-breakers and they both should be equally penalized for breaking our immigration laws and then should make them to stand in line with others than rewarding them for breaking our laws and bypass the line.
Also, keep it in mind that no country (including United States) can take care of the whole world or cannot allow everyone into the country who likes to come in here; otherwise United States would fall off as it has started to falling off slowly now. So this argument that "immigrants-haters", "after you got what others are looking for, you are selfish now", "this is a country of immigrants" and other more similar statement just don't make any sense because United States is no more the same as it was before or at least when it was founded. So same principles don't apply now.
In the case in topic the couples would have already been enjoying green card if their US citizen-son would have been 21 years old a way before or if there had not been any restriction on age as to who could sponsor for a green card. Their son files the paper immediately on the day he turns 21. They are able to get away for overstaying here for so long because our immigration laws forgive them for overstaying.
As for them filing taxes, then nobody (citizen or non-citizen) wants to pay taxes if they can get away with it but unfortunately most people cannot get away with it. What I'm saying is that they must have had no option except just paying the taxes on their income; otherwise nobody wants to pay taxes, including me. Thus, for them to have paid taxes doesn't necessarily mean they are good people nor it gives them a right to have a green card. I know at least 200 people who are here illegally for 30-40 years without any legal status. They also came here with a visa but then they overstayed. The only difference is-they don't have a US citizen as an immediate family member to be sponsored unlike the case in topic. To me, govt. should treat everyone equally than treating people differently based on who have US citizen as an immediate relative and who don't. Again, it's the govt who is the problem.
