<p>Then you have not been reading enough of my posts. :)</p>
<p>"Then you haven't been reading enough of my posts."</p>
<p>I'm not sure if you're directing that comment towards me. If so, I guess I haven't been. :) I had to skip some of your posts because they've been written during my school time. I don't believe that I can read everything. :)</p>
<p>Eh -- miscommunication -- that post wasn't directed at you. The forum software was acting weird for some reason.</p>
<p>"By other "thread", do you mean another topic? In that case, no. I've only been following this specific topic."</p>
<p>Yes that's right. So you wouldn't know what I was talking about. But it was still a legitimate question.</p>
<p>zoosermom wrote: "'is an income tax cheat than the undocumented immigrant who is trying to legalize his/her status. '</p>
<p>What has been your experience (if any) in terms of illegal immigrants who aren't trying to legalize?"</p>
<p>Because I am an immigration attorney, obviously I meet people who are trying to obtain lawful status. Why would anyone who is content to live as an undocumented person go see an immigration attorney? Sometimes the people who come to me have lived for a very long time in the US without lawful status and without trying to legalize, either because they were unaware of opportunities to legalize, or perhaps because there was no urgent need to do so. But by the time the come to me, obviously they have some need or interest to do something -- so what is the point of your question?</p>
<p>My experience over the past 17 years is that every time US immigration law becomes more hostile to immigrants, undocumented people become more scared. They try to follow all the rules -- working, paying taxes, supporting kids, not accepting public benefits they may actually be entitled to in case their future immigration prospects might be compromised, not complaining about job discrimination, etc. On the other hand I have seen plenty of US citizen petitioners claiming negative income but driving new cars, paying big mortgages, etc. These tend to be independent contractors or business owners who are exceptionally "creative" in claiming business losses. This topic comes up frequently because a petitioner must sign a 10-year contract with the US government promising to repay any public benefits that the sponsored immigrant may obtain during that time period. The petitioner must provide income tax returns as evidence of sufficient income to meet the qualifications for the sponsored immigrant or find some co-sponsor who is willing to take on that risk.</p>
<p>And yes, there are certainly undocumented people who try to take advantage of the system -- work but not pay taxes, get benefits they are not entitled to by fraud or other devices, etc. Those so-called parasites and leaches. But these are not the majority of undocumented immigrants.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, for every new consult that I can help obtain lawful status, I have to tell ten others that there is nothing I can do for them. Let's just take the example of the undocumented Mexican, since they are everyone's favorite kicking post. The last time we had immigration legislation that helped undocumented Mexicans was in the 1980s with the amnesty program (people who arrived in the US prior to 1/1/82) and the agricultural workers legalization program. That's a long time ago. Since the 1980s, whenever the immigration law becomes more restrictive, it is aimed at keeping Mexicans out and forcing undocumented Mexicans who are here to leave. We had a special law in 1996 for Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Cubans and Soviet bloc nationals, but nothing for Mexican citizens. Mexicans cannot get asylum -- no political strife in Mexico. </p>
<p>There were two laws that Mexican undocumented immigrants used to benefit from, as did people from any other country. The first was something called "245(i)" which allowed the undocumented person to pay a fine of $1000.00 in order to be able to get a green card based on a family or work petition. This law expired in 2001 with the result that someone who came undocumented to the US and did not have a visa petition filed before 245(i) expired now has to return to the home country to apply for a green card, but then once he/she departs, cannot return for 10 years without a special and difficult to obtain waiver. Processing the waiver alone takes up to 2 years for approval, during which time the person has to stay outside the US, away from spouse, children, etc. The expiration of 245(i) has not hit undocumented people who came with a visa but overstayed as hard as it has hit people, including Mexicans, who came with no papers. This is because if you came with a visa and overstayed, then marry a US citizen, you can get your green card without having to leave. You are still an immigration violator, but you don't get punished with 10 years outside the US. </p>
<p>Let's take as an example a Mexican girl who came here illegally, let's just suppose as a 3-year old child brought by her parents, grows up here, graduates from high school, and eventually gets married to her US citizen boyfriend. She cannot get a green card without going back to Mexico and waiting outside possibly 10 years. But if she came from Canada, or her parents brought her here with work visas from some other country and overstayed, no problem. She is just as "illegal" as the Mexican girl, but she can stay and apply for her green card with no penalty and no requirement of staying outside the US for up to 10 years.</p>
<p>Another change to the immigration law that has been heartbraking for many undocumented people regardless of their country of origin was the elimination of suspension of deportation in 1997. This was a last resort for people in deportation proceedings. It was similar to an amnesty, but not something that you could apply for unless you were on the brink of being deported. Deportation could be suspended and permanent resident status granted if the person had proof that they had been living in the US for 7+ years, had no criminal record, paid income taxes, supported their children, and in every othe way were persons of good moral character. Plus they had to show that they or their legally present spouse, parent of child would suffer "extreme hardship" if the applicant was deported. So not every person with 7 years plus good moral character was eligible -- only those with extreme hardship. Fewer than 10,000 persons per year qualified.</p>
<p>In 1997 this law was changed to require 10 years in the US plus "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to qualifying family members. The applicant still has to show good moral character, and his/her own suffering no longer counts. Congress put a cap of 4,000 approvals per year, but since 1997 this cap has never been reached because of the ridiculously high hardship standard. For people who entered the US illegally, this may be their only hope if they are caught by immigration, but it is nearly impossible to win. Unless the applicant has at least one child with a life-threatening illness (juvenile diabetes, epilepsy, HIV are examples) they probably will not win. So, I have a lot of experience in meeting and trying to help undocumented people who would like to legalize their status, but who have no pathway to lawful status. </p>
<p>One famous case of a woman denied cancellation of removal involved a Mexican lady who had come to the US illegally and lived here more than 20 years. She had 5 children, all under age 18, and she was the sole support for them. She worked hard, paid her taxes, and even bought a house. She built a carwash business and employed other people. When she found herself in deportation proceedings, she sold her business to pay for her lawyer, and also to be prepared with money in hand so that she could pay off all her bills and have money to take with her if deported. She actually lost her case and was in fact deported because she would be returning to Mexico with about $50,000 cash in hand, and therefore her 5 kids would not suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship because that is relatively wealthy for her area of Mexico. None of the kids had any serious illnesses. All of the kids were US born citizens. None of them are likely attending any colleges in the US, since they had to go live in a foreign land with their mom. All of these kids can come back to the US as citizens when they are grown up, but if their education stopped as a result of their mother's deportation when they were 8 or 10 or 13 or 15 years old, what kind of future will they have? Haven't they been robbed of their "American dreams?" This is a very typical immigration story in my 17 years of experience.</p>
<p>Nodramamama, thank your for the courteous and informative post. It's much appreciated!</p>
<p>I am very, very sympathetic to people who come to America to do better for their children. That's why they are part of my life. There are terrible stories and even worse laws. The issue for me is that so many people seem unwilling to hold the native countries accountable. To make them do a better job of feeding, educating and caring for their most vulnerable. On a personal level, I will never be ok with a solution that doesn't involve the home countries. As long as well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) people continue to believe that every dowtrodden person can come to America and be cared for by her taxpayers, the flow of people will never stop, anger will never abate, and assimilation will never be complete.</p>
<p>yeold said: "According to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies:</p>
<p>'With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.'"</p>
<p>Right. The Center for Immigration Studies -- know your sources.</p>
<p>Right</a> Web | Profile | Center for Immigration Studies</p>
<p>Center for Immigration Studies</p>
<p>Overview </p>
<p>The Center for Immigration Studies describes itself as "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States." Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), CIS is dedicated "to expand the base of public knowledge and understanding of the need for an immigration policy that gives first concern to the broad national interest. The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."</p>
<p>CIS describes itself as "independent" and "nonpartisan," but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists. However, CIS has achieved credibility with the media and in think tank circles because of its lack of the kind of strident anti-immigrant rhetoric associated with many restrictionist groups, its willingness to invite pro-immigrant voices to its forums, and the scholarly format of its reports.</p>
<p>Members of its board of directors are: Patrick Burns, Thomas C.T. Brokaw, George Grayson, David Simoz (chair and president), Carol Iannone, Otis Graham (co-chair), Peter Nu</p>
<p>
[quote]
On a personal level, I will never be ok with a solution that doesn't involve the home countries.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have you ever called more than one country home, zoosermom? I was just curious.</p>
<p>Not to be rude or unfeeling, but most folks in the US are descended from immigrants who, on first arriving in the U.S., had to work at menial jobs, etc. and THEIR CHILDREN typically had a better life than their immigrant parents.</p>
<p>That is just the way it was and is. </p>
<p>We have Americans who have been here for generations who would like to go to college, and as taxpayers, they deserve to have first crack at those seats in the classroom. They should not have to compete for spots, as is happening now in California, where the children of illegal immigrants are filling up the classrooms and American kids can't take the classes as a result. My cousin's daughter was in this position a few years ago.</p>
<p>Another related issue is that, what is that percentage? 60% of the wealth in this country is in the hands of a small minority, with the rest of us vying for the other 40%. It is obscene when Mary Kate and Ashley are fighting over 2 billions dollars, or whatever amount they are supposedly inheriting, when impoverished American kids (descended from generations of Americans) go to school wearing dirty clothes--I know this first hand. If more Americans had a greater share of the wealth in this country, they might feel better about allowing illegal immigrants to share in the wealth and the better jobs. Not enough is said about the incredible inequity of money distribution in this country and just why we don't have laws that limit what banks can charge, etc etc. This country is becoming two-tiered--the wealthy and the poor. This was not the Founding Fathers' vision when this country began.</p>
<p>While the story of the carwash-owner is heartbreaking, I could not help thinking about the fact that it was her choice to come to the U.S. illegally and her choice to bear 5 (!) children, knowing that at any moment she might be discovered and deported. Where is the personal responsibility element in all of these stories?</p>
<p>Damn, all those Jews who gave birth during the Holocaust, knowing any moment they might be discovered and deported. Where is the personal responsibility element in these stories?</p>
<p>gal,</p>
<p>So you are equating Americans being forced to live in Mexico with murder? Nice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They should not have to compete for spots, as is happening now in California, where the children of illegal immigrants are filling up the classrooms and American kids can't take the classes as a result. My cousin's daughter was in this position a few years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, in restricting input, you also get a lesser return of less teachers.</p>
<p>What is the economic rationale behind funded education? Is it so much more an obligation owed to people as an economic return?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That is just the way it was and is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Women are often disadvantaged in the work place. That is the way it was (1500s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, 1950s...) -- I guess it's like that, and that's the way it is, and should be, forevermore?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We have Americans who have been here for generations who would like to go to college, and as taxpayers, they deserve to have first crack at those seats in the classroom.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, had a school voucher programme been implemented, maybe there wouldn't be as drastic a shortage? There would be further financial incentive to educate as many individuals as possible, including those immigrants that will eventually generate a return ... you know, rather than have entrenched education administrators who have no incentive to increase efficiency ...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see forced deportment from any society one has (partially) assimilated into and is contributing to, as the same transgression against the social contract. The problem is of different <em>magnitude</em> but of the same nature.</p>
<p>I can only imagine the outrageous <em>magnitude</em> of hurt and insult you have just delivered to an entire population of Jewish people with that analogy.</p>
<p>I don't imagine you have ever been to Mexico, have you? I and my family have been there more times than I can count. We VACATION there. My Aunt has chosen to live there full time. Parts of it are breathtakingly beautiful. To equate the fate of an American to a few years of living in Mexico to the Holocaust is beyond unbelievable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I and my family have been there more times than I can count. We VACATION there. My Aunt has chosen to live there full time. Parts of it are breathtakingly beautiful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You <em>willingly</em> went there.</p>
<p>I'm talking about bloody deportation.</p>
<p>I don't care if someone gets deported to a Ritz in Tahiti after having contributed to American society for decades. Both forms of deportation entail massive violations of liberty.</p>
<p>Please, don't bloody push words into my mouth. I'm talking about social contract analogy, not the pleasantries of your rich vacations.</p>
<p>^^You are attempting to write the social contract in the way that pleases you and displeases the masses, which is, of course, something a dictator would do. This differs only in magnitude from what Hitler might do.</p>
<p>"If you didn't have laws, you'd have bloody anarchy."
-Mick Jagger, playing Keith Richards on Saturday Night Live.</p>
<p>Bay, are you serious? Mexico covers a huge area of land - with a population of 109 million. </p>
<p>"Mexico is home to the largest number of U.S. citizens abroad (estimated at one million as of 1999), which represents 1% of the Mexican population." </p>
<p>Your aunt is part of the one percent. The other 99% do not live there on vacation, see the "breathtakingly beautiful" scenery but instead live in poverty in overpopulated, downtrodden areas of Mexico. </p>
<p>I like how you called the deported individuals "Americans." Yet, they deserve to be deported when they're true home lies in America?
And don't tell me that they should follow the law. Many people who helped some Jewish people escape murder by the Nazis should not because they were violating the law?</p>
<p>"Again I ask you -- please respond -- is it never just to break any law, regardless of the circumstances? Never ever ever?"</p>
<p>What does your question have to do with what I have said? I clearly believe immigration laws should either be obeyed, or legally amended if the citizenry disapproves of them.</p>
<p>"You <em>willingly</em> went there."</p>
<p>Yes, they went there, and contributed to their economy as a tourist. Therefore, they should have all the rights of citizens. As they are citizens of Mexico, you shouldn't expect to insult their homeland and not get a response of high dudgeon.</p>
<p>FLVADAD - But those denied citizenship cannot speak for their rights.</p>