My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant
mobile.nytimes.com
mobile.nytimes.com
I was brought here as a kid 13 years ago. I'm 24 now. I also graduated from a "top" university -- like that matters. I guess my parents weren't smart enough to get a fake social security card for me back then, I wish they were. I've also been fighting for the Dream Act for what feels like an eternity. I made a site and still maintain it, have met with Senators, protested in front of the White House, several times, other things. I'm loosing hope. I lost hope in Congress long ago. I lost hope in this President in December, when he failed to stand by us and the vote. I don't have anything left to wait for.
I'm still "hiding," most of my friends have no idea, but I see less and less reason to do so every day. I just can't take it anymore. I'm worth _something_. I'm competent coder, and fuck it all, at least I got that, my mind, and my family.
Anybody who wants to debate the pros and cons of immigration reform can go to hell. I'm done reading the hate mail. I'm done debating. I am done listening to those masked bigots. I know what it is like to live like this having done nothing wrong. I know that I don't deserve the punishment. If we can't agree on the fact that I am American and should have basic rights, then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not asking for anything except recognition.
Btw, people who were brought here on fake documents, as me and Jose, can't get married for papers. So even if Jose wasn't gay, he wouldn't be able to adjust based on marriage. It's unfortunate that people who come here on student visas get married -- assuming they have enough money -- and have a green card in six months. People like me and Jose, homebred Americans if ya will, are forever tarnished with this inherited title. Hello, my name is "illegal immigrant." That's what I feel like every single day. Every morning in the shower, I utter the words "I am so fucking tired." And I am.
There's one simple problem with changing immigration, and that's the system is working as intended. Farm workers can't unionize nearly as easily if they are undocumented, and undocumented workers don't have to be paid standard wages. In fact, they can explicitly be paid substandard wages and there is no way to complain. Your parents, most likely.
Undocumented workers lower unskilled work wages and working conditions far past what a documented system would. Further, as workers age out of the ability to do backbreaking farm work, they have no legal protections on which to rely, and can be thrown back out more easily. The DREAM act, however, brings people into the system with legal protections, people who can't easily be exploited in the same way their parents are. Your parents, that is.
And that's why we face an uphill battle with the DREAM act. It sounds conspiratorial, and nobody would explicitly admit this; sometimes, we get to status quo through unintended consequences, but people build their businesses on unintended consequences, and change isn't something they take easily, especially when it impacts their bottom line.
Surely there would be some way to legalize low cost unskilled workers at the expense of giving them some basic rights.
It's a labor supply shock, not a shortage however. The people who would be hired would be inexperienced and more expensive.
Anyways, it's the states policy.
The real gem of this story is that the Secret Service and Whitehouse staff/security couldn't catch the fake social security card/number, that Vargas submitted.
LoL! If those institutions cant catch, then who can? Anybody can come here illegally and live/work enjoy. The fear (no reason for it) they have is similar to fear we have of accident - it rarely happens but needs vigilance/careful.
vargas, when he was smuggled into this country, was not "special case" at that time. This is a typical, hallmark fraud case. The coyote, fake passport, fake student visa, fake greencard the list goes on.
you want the Law to be just in above case? i am just saying there needs to be punishment and accountability.
Believe me, the US immigration law is lot better, just and clever than most other countries. There are lot of legal aliens that comply with it, and grateful for the opportunity.
He committed 70% of the fraud after turning 16. He is not kid anymore, and be responsible for his situation/actions.
What about legal alien kids who come (sent by parents) here legally for undergrad studies...pay upto 100K in tuition fees, and be sent back if can't get job visa or other legal immigration problems? Wouldn't you argue, this kid knows nothing , he was shown the american dream, he deserves greencard/citizenship?
Lot of other scenarios can be argued.
There is law for a reason, and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
This is just further evidence that the system is terribly broken. And, of course, in this case the kid getting sent home still has the illegal immigration option. He/she's no worse off than someone like Vargas, though residing illegally is probably more difficult when you're already on file with the gov't.
There is law for a reason
So you say. Clearly it's not working out very well, or situations like this (and many others) wouldn't pop up so often, and immigration reform wouldn't be a hot-button issue of national importance.
... and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
They can feel however they want to feel; I don't particularly care. They do have one huge benefit over Vargas' situation: they don't live in fear every day that someone will find out about them and they'll get sent back to their birth country.
Obviously you've never dealt with immigration. My wife was a Chinese citizen here on a student visa when we married, and so I've dealt with the process first hand.
It seems to me that most people believe that the process of getting a green card or citizenship is just a matter of filling out a couple forms, going to a notary, and waiting a few months for everything to be approved. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and as a result, many people who want to do everything legally, who really try to do so, wind up with an illegal status.
The process involves scores of forms that must be filled out just so. I can tell you from personal experience that figuring out exactly what the INS wanted was a challenge -- for me, an native English speaker who got 680 on the SAT verbal section. It's nearly impossible for non-native speakers, but many of them can't afford a lawyer to help them.
My wife's application was rejected twice. The first was due to confusion about the correct papers to prove marriage. The second was due to improperly collected fingerprints. We went to the State Police to have the fingerprint cards done. Who is better qualified to take good fingerprint samples than the police, right? We were rejected because the NJ State Police are not certified by the INS as fingerprint authorities. It seems that, to get the prints done legally, we had to drive to the duly certified fingerprint authority, some 40 miles away, which turned out to be a camera shop. Her prints were taken by some Indian guy, obviously an immigrant himself, rather than a police officer -- and these were accepted.
On one occasion the wife was at the INS office in NYC Federal Plaza. The woman at the counter was telling wife that something had to be done just so, no exceptions. Wife asked to speak to a manager to try to clear up the misunderstanding -- a perfectly legitimate request in any business. Rather than trying to work with my wife to resolve the disagreement, the worker pushed a little button, and two big burly guys came out of a door and physically removed my wife from the premises, claiming that she was a threat.
Obviously this process is not about a correct and complete application: they are about perpetuating the INS itself, through the fees for fingerprint certifications; shoring up their little fiefdoms, and so on. Anyone who believes that people who are unsuccessful in navigating this bureaucracy are criminals, bad elements that we don't want in our society, is badly mistaken.
The secret service is supposed to be able to pull up entire background check - not simply make sure if SSN checkouts against Vargas name.
The shortest route is 10 years.
What is true is that the system is rigged against Indians and Chinese. If you are Indian and don't have a PhD, then yes, you may have to wait 10 years, probably longer in fact. Unlike the hardships of illegal immigrants, this hardly ever gets any attention though.
The entire reason we have a problem is because there isn't a good way to "do things legally".
It's probably only 'easy' for Canadians.
Dismantle the bureaucracy that makes immigration so difficult? Yes. I believe in free markets.
May I attempt to translate?: Throw my weaker countrymen under the bus. I have no human loyalties to those born in my nation who share my culture. Their welfare is of no consequence compared to potentially profitable foreigners.
I think your "tribalism vs meritocracy" line does get to the heart of the matter. Except I would substitute the term "nationalism" for tribalism. And the story of the 19th and 20th century is the absolute failure of systems of government not oriented around nationalism, and tribe. All over the world empires and larger nations repeatedly broke up into their tribal elements. This is inevitable human nature and fighting it is just stupid. This project of inviting the entire world into the borders of the USA will end in civil war eventually. Enoch Powell was right. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Riv...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2686136
After 4 years (3 years + 1 year of waiting for the citizenship test, passport generation, etc) you can come back and work in the US under TN at the border. You can also travel to the USA by applying for a 5-10 year B visa and visit as you wish once you've had your your permanent residence card for a while. This all contingent if you haven't had any issues with us immigration. Singapore is also an option.
Can programmers even apply under the skilled category anymore? I thought Canada only wanted computer managers since 2009(?).
http://canberra.usembassy.gov/e3visa/qualifying.html http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/175... http://www.guidemesingapore.com/relocation/pr/singapore-perm...
With that said, I think illegal immigration creates all kinds of societal problems and is unfair to legal immigrants.
The problem it creates is that there's enormous stress on those that are illegal. They live in the shadows and can be taken advantage of. My own personal experience was driving in LA and being rear-ended by someone who then fled the scene (most likely illegal). They work for less than minimum wage and don't cooperate with law enforcement for fear of deportation.
I'm a child of legal immigrants so I'm naturally biased. There is a legal system and many people every year try to go through that system like my parents did. I see illegal immigrants as "cutting in line" and I see nothing fair about it.
But I'm also human. People like Vargas had no choice (sent here as a kid) and has made a life here. I also sympathize those that flee poverty, crime and even wanting a brighter future. I also grew up in LA and know that many illegal immigrants live decent lives.. heck some of my friends are probably undocumented.
But completely opening the borders is not feasible. Creating systems that encourage illegal immigration only make the problem worse (and exacerbate the problems mentioned above).
There is a legal system and many people every year try
to go through that system like my parents did. I see
illegal immigrants as "cutting in line" and I see
nothing fair about it.
1. Marrying an american
2. Indentured servitude via H1-B (hard to get, and if you leave your job/get fired you have to find a new job in two weeks or leave)
It used to be a lot easier in the past.
2) Being a citizen doesn't just have benefits but also responsibilities. This is why we pledge allegiance.
At age 21 I had to register for the civil service. That means that if my country goes to war and I'm drafted then I must fight and possibly die for my country.
An illegal immigrant will not be drafted.
It also means other things I'm bound under federal law like paying taxes. There are also other civil duties like being on a jury to judge my fellow citizens. As a citizen, I'm bound by the laws on our constitution and those created by our legislature.
3) The privileges of a citizen allow them to contribute to the way our democracy functions including the right to vote.
An illegal immigrant cannot vote.
The rest of my argument was already stated above to you. If we completely open the borders to everyone, then our government wouldn't even be able to serve the current legal citizens.
You may dislike the system but in other countries such as Japan and Germany it is even more difficult and exclusionary. They are based on parentage and while that make more sense to you, it actually ends up leaving large classes of immigrants unnaturalized.
I hoped for somewhat better reasoning than that. If you take "it's a law and it must stay unchanged" principle to the heart, then you would be dead by now killed as invader by one of American-Indian tribes.
2) "Opening borders to everyone" has very little to do with "Stopping discrimination against immigrants".
It has everything to do with opening the borders because if illegal immigrants have all the same rights as citizens then you're essentially inviting every immigrant to come to the US.
Of anyone, I would think you understand that our physical borders does not do a great job of preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country.
You seem to pick and choose your literal arguments from your theoretical ones.
Societies that raise slave armies aren't free.
Or, did I miss where you'd be able to abstain if, for instance, you knew the whole thing was a farce?
> Being a citizen doesn't just have benefits but also responsibilities.
And consequences. If you're a US taxpayer (one of about 200M) you've recently paid for the killing of about 1/100th of someone, likely a non-combatant.
Not to count (of course) those your country's policies have merely displaced, such as many of the poor in Mexico, victims of "Free Trade" and the like.
Darned illegals.
> If we completely open the borders to everyone, then our government wouldn't even be able to serve the current legal citizens.
Cite needed.
The USA can manufacture and deliver a bomb for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, and you don't think it could provide basic food and medical instead?
Everything else you said is simply biased slander on your part.
Like Iraq. It may crawl back to where it was before the attack but only at ten times the effort. Likely it'll bear the scars of the war for a century and, if the USA gets its way, suffer "treaties" long after that. Is it insulting to the Iraqis to say that this will set them back, or is it realistic?
> Everything else you said is simply biased slander on your part.
I could say you're a pro-USA fanboy who'll blindly support them regardless because he's afraid his loyalty will be questioned and his citizenship revoked. But, even if I feel you act that way, I won't. Srs. So don't do it to me either, k?
If you think the privilege of an H1B is
"indentured servitude", it seems that
immigration is not for you.
I am educated, healthy, young, have no criminal record and as a programmer I earn a significantly higher than average salary (and therefor pay significantly higher than average taxes).
I can say with a straight face that probably any country I choose to live in will benefit from me being there, so why would you want to keep skilled people like me out?
My original point is that H1B is not a right, it's a privilege. Even though you're awesome (by your own account), I fail to see why you're owed anything.
1) United States agriculture absolutely depends on a certain amount of unskilled labor to function, for which the United States has been importing Mexican laborers in large numbers for at least 80 years. Ending this importation of labor would literally cause the agriculture system in this country to break down.
2) Many parts of Mexico have been economically depressed with high underemployment/unemployment for decades. There are physically too many people for the quantity of available jobs.
The undocumented immigrants I know (including my parents’ godson who is a migrant agricultural laborer, including several guys who stayed in my family’s house for a few months in the early 1990s, including 30-50% of young men from many indigenous communities in southern Mexico, etc.) DO NOT want to leave their parents, their wives, their children, their communities to go to a strange place where they do not speak the language to do hard labor, missing their children’s early years, DO NOT want to take on tremendous personal financial risk in the form of huge loans from loan sharks who will happily repossess their family’s home or start sending goons to beat people up if the money isn’t repaid.
Unfortunately, the choice is often hover-your-whole-life-just-above-or-below-subsistence-level (i.e. take on personally degrading and dangerous jobs to feed your family, risk starvation, etc.), or clear out and go somewhere else. If the outlet of leaving to the United States were unavailable as an escape valve, I’m quite convinced many would end up either starving or turning to other kinds of desperate action.
In other words, not really a choice at all.
You’re damn right that a system that has people staying in this country without papers isn’t fair and allows those people to be taken advantage of. You know what else isn’t fair and allows people to be taken advantage of? The whole global economic order.
[Note: this is not intended as a call to any particular action; just trying to state facts.]
Mexico isn't the only poor country in the world. They just happen to be the one that's closest to the US. When my parents legally immigrated here, South Korea was a poor nation. Look at the history of US immigration and you'll see that this is a pattern (eg. Irish and Italians in the 1900s to modern day immigrants from Africa and Asia).
I'm from LA so I'm well aware of the economic contributions of the Mexican illegal immigrants.
With that said, I don't necessarily agree with your positions. Due to the massive rate of illegal immigration, agriculture has been able to thrive on low cost economics. If they didn't have that labor, it doesn't mean the US would shut down. What it would mean is that the US would have to adjust the economics in order to make it viable. This could result in the following:
a) A much larger legal guest worker program. b) Importing more agriculture from countries like Mexico. c) Higher wages for legal farm workers (including legal residents of Mexican origin).
In all 3 of these cases, it would lead to be a better situation for Mexican-Americans or Mexico. In the case of b), it would help the economics of Mexico.
I sympathize that Mexico is a poor country. Like I said before, there are many poor countries in this world. I don't want to sound callous but I don't understand how this is specifically the responsibility of the US. We don't even have a nationalized health system.
Also, allowing illegal immigration does not help Mexico in the long term. It won't fix their lack of economy and unemployment problems. Saying there are "physically too many people" is an excuse IMO. Every country battles the problem of unemployment.
I'm living here for more than a year and am still shocked that there are neighborhoods that only speak their native language and are virtually paperless... even though some of them goes to tijuana every other weekend. I'm here legally and still avoid going to mexico to avoid the hassle.
For sure the big papers and TV network here in the Philippines would race to get Jose to join them.
JV, it's time to face another world. We got your back!
"[Throughout the history of the U.S.] you had a flood of immigrants, millions of them, coming to this country. What brought them here? It was the hope for a better life for them and their children. And, in the main, they succeeded. It is hard to find any century in history, in which so large a number of people experienced so great an improvement in the conditions of their life, in the opportunities open to them, as in the period of the 19th and early 20th century.
You will find hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’
What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not?
Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he or she works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit.
But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values."
You can read the rest at: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-milton-friedma...
Edit: actually the natural growth rate is every so slightly positive. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canada_by_year#Co...
Although Canada has the most liberal immigration policy of all industrialized countries today, it will still take an applicant years to become a Canadian.
I do not disagree on any of those counts, the fact still remains that impediments to immigration are not caused (either solely or entirely) by welfare states. And more to the point, they can have considerably more liberal policies than less progressive states.
So when i hear people attack socialized systems, especially in oblique manners such as this (rather than highlighting specific policies that need to change), my bullshit radar goes off.
Thankfully one of my divorced parents married a citizen close to when I started high school. Eventually I was eligible to apply for citizenship sometime late in college.
I still remember the citizenship 'test' I had to take. It consisted of telling the tester: the colors of flag, reading a sentence that said George Washington was the 1st US president, and telling her who the current president was. Ironically I had passed an AP US history course sometime ago with flying colors.
USA are not the World. I've heard Canada is very open to knowledge workers from outside. Learn about other countries.
Good luck.
But overall I just feel that the compassion about immigration is misplaced. I don't understand why all the pro-immigration people say "look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them." I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want.
I really don't think we want a situation where breaking the law is the best way to get ahead. If I was waiting to get into the US, I would be pretty upset to see all the benefits going to the people who cut in line.
I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally. Naturally more leniency should be extended to children.
EDIT: It is stories like this that I feel we should be solving with immigration reform: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2685261
But such is the case. If Jose or anyone else wants to change this inherent unfairness they can do that.
Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. It is extremely unfair to the people who are also trying to immigrate to the US, but do so by entering lotteries, applying for GCs and all.
"Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes"
The guy didn't choose to be put in that situation, that decision was made for him. I think that's deserving of some empathy ... but that's just me.
You are just claiming that it's ok to have discrimination by contry of birth.
Well, unfair discrimination is NOT OK. That's why you are getting downvoted.
I personally did not downvote you. Even though I strongly disagree - at least you are trying to understand.
For me, it comes down to what he said here: >Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line.
The thing is that everyone else who is in the line is also hoping for a better life. So what justifies someone cutting?
In this specific case, he had no choice in the matter (put on a plane as a kid) so I think he should be allowed to stay. But every other adult is, in my opinion, cutting in line.
Share with us why immigrants are discriminated against and if this discrimination is fair.
I understand your position and, philosophically, it's an interesting one to take. But if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry.
It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world. In the world, we are citizens of nations and citizenship is defined by laws. In the US, that citizenship can be given through birth.
Is that fair? Maybe not. But life's not fair. America has established a legal immigration system in order to (try to) make it fair. Simply ignoring that whole system and questioning the basic order of things seems like just an excuse to cut in line.
Yeah. It's just what the first people to go somewhere say when someone else tries to join them. "Take off, we first settlers don't want you here."
We don't recognize first-posters as owning the thread, or (except in the USA) first-solvers owning the formula, so why should we recognize first-squatters owning the land?
> It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world.
Not at all. The concept of doing whatever you want is firmly established in the real world. Your adoptive countrymen weren't welcomed here (or at least, not in much of 'here'). They came by force and trick, murdering and stealing.
At least today's undocumented immigrants live in peace.
Did you RTA? The whole article was about how he lives in constant fear. OTOH, my parents were legal immigrants and have no guilt over the british colonists who took this land over from the native americans. Same goes for me.
You can stick your head in the sand but, at the end of the day, you still have to obey the laws of the country you're in. Even if you join a cult or live in the remote mountains of Montana, you're still bound by law. This is true for you and for people who come here illegally.
You really don't have much to complain about.
As for law though, and obeying it, no. No, you don't have to obey the laws of the land you're in. In fact, there are times no good person would do so. It's just rules other people made up, not 'right'.
You're right I can't change the law but I can undermine it - make it easier to break and escape punishment for. Waste resources chasing ghosts instead of waging war and evicting the needy.
Prior to introducing that immigration system there was no legal discrimination by country of origin.
Whether there should be no concept of citizenry is a different topic outside of scope of this discussion.
Is it more fair to have a free for all where people sneak in?
It's convenient to say something is not fair as justification to break all the rules.
But what is the justification for discriminating immigrants?
Discrimination, in the legal sense, says that there should be no prejudice against people by race, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other protected groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
But legal status is _NOT_ a protected group.
Here's another way to look at it:
Criminals lose rights. They lose the right to roam freely in public among many other freedoms. Some of them lose the right to vote. By your definition, we discriminate against criminals since we treat them differently than we do law-abiding citizens.
Do you disagree with the disparity in this treatment?
Many people see illegal immigrants as breaking the law. Ergo the use of the word "illegal." Many people see them as criminals.
Ergo, differential treatment (or discrimination) is justified.
Even outside of these concepts, discrimination happens all the time. When people apply for a job, the smarter, more qualified candidate is discriminated against lesser candidates. Is this not fair?
When the NFL drafts certain players over others, that's discrimination. Is this not fair?
Anytime a person is chosen over another, you have discrimination. Your assertion that it is inherently unfair is wrong.
Many undocumented immigrants are. They're ignoring it.
And, if you do catch and deport them, at great cost, you're just cutting one more local job. Congrats.
Why not? Think about it has hacking / routing around a broken system and it doesn't sound so bad. These are precisely the kinds of people I want living in working in the US: hard-working individuals who want to better themselves and those around them, and are willing to do anything to get there.
Or maybe I just hate waiting in lines.
Every country on the planet appears to have restrictions on immigration. Most of the time we don't discuss the policies of countries other than the United States in new submissions to HN, even though HN is an international forum, because most countries are lousy enough to be entrepreneurs in and lousy enough to live in that no one on HN wants to immigrate to those countries. (Instead, most people on HN discuss how to get OUT of dozens of other countries around the world, and in many cases how to immigrate to the United States.) When we consider that the actual number of legally authorized immigrants to the United States each year is one of the highest such numbers in the world (does ANY country have more legal immigrants each year?), it's hard to make a case that the United States is missing out on immigrants by its current policies. Perhaps there are some policy changes to be made on the margins, and on my own part my policy preference would be to make immigration to the United States legally easier and much more commonplace, but the way to make the case for policy reform is to show law-abiding Americans that the policy changes help their lives. The Americans I know, including many law-abiding first-generation immigrants, want policy reform that makes like better in general for all people already in America, as well as for people intending to immigrate here.
[1] Second paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_State...
the statistics for number of new citizens per capita remove that bias. and then the USA ranks #26. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_percap-immigra...
http://www.ssab.gov/documents/IMMIG_Issue_Brief_Final_Versio...
High productivity farm land is being destroyed by development at an alarming rate. The US is steadily becoming a food importer in category after category, where once we exported. This puts further pressure on our already abysmal trade deficit. This is also a national security issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28Oregon_regional_govern...
My uncle immigrated in Spain for instance; entered and worked illegally at first (since a Schengen visa was required of him, and he could find illegal work more easilly anyway), but forward 15 years later, and now he has full citizenship and a perfectly legal driver's license. And he has had a legal job for 10 years already.
For me I have the following difficulty - you can't obtain a visa for work in the US if you don't have a college degree in the domain you want to work in. And then it's extremely difficult to be a startup founder that way, since with that kind of visa you can only work as an employee and have a sponsor. Unless you can obtain a Visa at the lottery or for extraordinary merits.
This is absolutely insane - since I just got out and bought a college degree in CS, waited 3 years to get it of course, but I got it, and now I can get an US Visa.
But then again, why should I? Why wouldn't I go work in Zurich or in London or in Berlin, or just stay where I am, since obviously the US doesn't want me?
Within Europe, yes. It's hard to immigrate into Europe coming from outside.
"Especially as an EU citizen."
Only as an EU citizen. If you're not, it's hard to travel around Europe - you need a lot of papers, for each country you go to, and it's not a matter of filling in a form online and they'll send you the papers; it involves certified translations, several appointments with embassies and the like, etc.
As to the last sentence, there is a reason people flock to the US - because it's simply a better climate there to start a business. Good luck in Zurich (of all places! the Swiss are as close-minded and protective of their nationality and 'independence' as it comes!) or anywhere else in Europe. Of course it can be done, many companies are founded and are successful; but nowhere near the same level as in the US.
(European here)
Immigrating to Europe from outside Shengen space is as hard as getting to US from outside.
Yes, if my GC failed, i'd be strongly disappointed, to say the least, would be forced to start to think again where to go - Canada, England, Germany, Australia... didn't want back to Russia (even though programmer's salary there would make me live comparably much better than i live here) - tough choices ...
These poor guys waiting for a piece of a tough dirty day job - what choice they have? what alternative did they have before crossing into US illegally if what they have now is supposedly a better one?
And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law.
I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?
But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.
I think it's clear that our current system is broken. It's far too expensive to enforce our current system, so we're left with laws that are ineffectual. Reality trumps abstract ideas, and I think we need laws that deal effectively with the reality of our situation.
No, I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation. But I'm not that interested in debating with someone who puts words in my mouth.
"I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation"
See, more black and white. I don't think anyone is suggesting no regulation. You aren't putting words in my mouth are you? ;)
Why don't we create a legal process to let people that want to work here come and work. Why limit it so much?
Huh? Our current system simply isn't enforced. It's not a matter of cost at all. It's just expedient for an alliance of big business and certain political elements to allow a continued flow of criminal aliens.
I mean, look at Israel. They enforce a much more restrictive immigration system at low cost with no difficulty. Or Japan, or Korea, or any of dozens of other nations.
Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
Yeah, that's real fair.
And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me.
I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule".
We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".
If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next).
Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.
More so, I asked for you to see the situation in a different light. I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else", while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article, and in essence, ignoring your own history and how you got to where you are. In my opinion, its actually a bit arrogant and self-centered, to think that its just that easy to dictate something so complicated as immigration.
Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
If you could tell me, what "fairness" and "regulation" did you face when you came to America? Or your parents, or their parents, or theirs' as the case may be. The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
Exactly, you seem to prefer to philosophize and invoke moral criticism than to actually discuss practical solutions.
> I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else"
I started this thread by arguing that we should have compassion for people who run into headaches while trying to immigrate legally, and that we should aim to make things easier for them.
> while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
> The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
The only difference between me and Bill Gates' kids is who we happened to be born to, but that doesn't entitle me to grow up in Bill Gates' house.
It is you who are making an argument of entitlement. A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa. The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
The only thing that makes my position more privileged than a Mexican's is that my countryman and ancestors have built a more prosperous economy than Mexico has. That's dumb luck on my part, no doubt, which I am grateful for. I didn't do anything to earn that.
But there's no way everyone on earth is going to be born with equal opportunity. And there is no virtue in opening wide the gates of immigration if just ends up making the (currently) desirable place more like the (currently) undesirable place.
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
Obviously, we don't hold children to the same standard as adults. However, the fact that its not an implicit belief (to give a child benefit of the doubt) and has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such. That even though he came here as a kid, that this is all he knows and lives, we should be lenient when we consider kicking him out. I see selfish ration and logic in your words, but I see no compassion or sensibility for others.
A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa.
You'll never work in Mexico because nobody will pay you a livable wage, thats the difference. It sounds the equivalent of someone saying: "I don't step through your garbage dump looking for food, so you don't step through my wine vineyard. That's called fairness."
The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed. By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite. You know, the people who account for something like 90% of the worlds wealth in 10% of the population.
> has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority.
You really ought not personally insult the guy you're discussing with... it doesn't help the discussion at all. Really uncalled for, haberman is disagreeing with you but he's being civil. If you don't like his points, argue without the insults.
To say something like "immigrant children broke the law, but since they're kids, we should be lenient when we consider punishing them", carries a pass of judgement that I perceive to be as a statement on whom is more righteous or more privileged. I don't feel like anyone has the right to pass that judgment nor harbor that mentality, just because they themselves are secure in their person and place by chance and fortune. It shows little thought or consideration for other human beings, especially when complex situations become simply labelled as " illegal immigrant", or "lawbreaker".
So while what I said may seem insulting, they are not intended to be direct insults. I feel what I feel, and I'm just doing my best to describe that.
If you came home and a homeless person was sleeping in your bed, would you consider it an intolerable passing of judgement to say they shouldn't have done that and you will be "deporting" them out of your house?
and if i had a huge house with more than enough space, and one day discovered that a homeless child had moved into a tiny space a few decades ago, contributed extensively to maintaining that space, and is now an adult, i would say it's completely intolerable for me to evict them at that point.
What bothers me about your attitude is that you invoke a sense of moral superiority to defend what is nothing more than breaking the rules to get ahead. It shows more compassion for the people who will take what they want than the people who work to get it.
I can have compassion for people who come to this country looking for opportunity. But I have 10x more compassion and respect for the person who is stuck in their own country because they can't get a visa than the person who decided to break the law to get ahead.
I'm pretty sure that I would feel the same way if I had been born in Mexico. I've always been a "wait in line" kind of guy, and I'm pretty sure I would resent seeing the most impassioned defense of immigrants directed at the line-jumpers rather than the people who are still waiting in line.
> Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed.
Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.
Present-day Mexicans are mostly descendants of the Spanish and the indigenous tribes like the Aztec and Maya. The Spanish conquered and colonized the Americas for 400 years, destroying entire civilizations and enslaving the people. The indigenous people practiced human sacrifice as well as slavery. No civilization has clean hands when judged by the standards of today.
And what exactly do you think the USA did to "take opportunity away" from "some" (this turn of phrase conveniently implies a general feeling of guilt without being specific enough to evaluate). Canada seems to be doing fine, so how are you going to pin Mexico's relative poverty on the USA?
> By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite.
No, I mean "most of the world." People who are forced to leave their home are called "refugees," which are estimated to be 62M people worldwide, or 1% of the world population.
It's true. If we applied the same rules to countries that we do to the mafia, you'd be a criminal conspirator in an agency that has routinely used murder for control and profit.
Did you go to an American public school?
And your hero Che Guevara?
But the complicity of other countries in no way lessens the fact that much of the USA's wealth, and thus success, is stolen.
I'm not a Minuteman and I'm not going to argue for any border fences, but it seems like the root cause of the problem is that the risk of getting caught is so low that many people try it. The real solution would be to make people not want to immigrate illegally in the first place.
>I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally.
It's because the official green card process is [utterly ridiculous](http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-imm...) and stacked against almost every prospective immigrant. It's one of those cases where the law has failed to catch up to the underlying economics of the situation: immigrants need jobs and the US has a need for cheap or highly specialized labour.
That is the process that needs to be reformed. Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives.
It achieves fairness about who gets in. Rules may need to be revised, etc. No arguments here. But while the revision is taking place or not taking place the rules need to be followed.
What positive benefit would come about due to kicking Vargas out of the country? Those on his side will just be angry, and the xenophobes will just remain as they are, satisfied that they ruined a life.
If a rule is unjust to begin with, I don't see how being fair in its application is all that paramount. Insert any number of parallels to the War on Drugs here.
I think that's a fair point. A more important argument is that making the system too lenient towards people who have come here illegally creates the wrong incentives.
What I really don't get is how incapable the bleeding hearts are of understanding that immigration hurts the weakest Americans. Wages are driven down. See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots...
This dynamic applies well farther up the economic food chain.
Repressive government policies. Exactly.
We're supposed to believe the free market is efficient and useful, but that free people are inefficient and problematic.
That's why, in my view, immigration laws have no legitimacy whatsoever. Where you are born is complete chance. Some of those who happen to be born in better places think that it serves them well to keep others out in order to keep that unfair competitive advantage. Sometimes it's the very same people who pride themselves of being in favor of free trade, a level playing field, antiprotectionist, etc. A ridiculously disingenuous position considering the most important thing everyone has to trade is their own time, effort and skills.
They find all kinds of spurious reasons to defend this unfair and blatently self-serving position. One of the worst is that all countries have immigration laws. This argument mixes up practical matters with ethical ones. Obviously, it's difficult for one country to unilaterally abolish all immigration laws. But that shouldn't convince anyone that these laws have any moral foundation or are based on democracy or that they personally have a right to tell others where to settle.
Sometimes teachers seem to me like the downright best humanity has to offer.
The inability to obtain US citizenship even though I was attending a consecutively #1 rated program on the continent, at one of the best schools in the country really dimmed my own hopes. I remember wanting to apply for an internship at MIT Lincoln labs for anti-ballistic missile defense, and being crushed when I realized I couldn't.
Yeah, we saw that one in Vancouver recently...
Also, programmer salaries aren't exactly the same. A top notch coder in SF Bay area or NYC makes x2-x6 than a Canadian. Apart from money, I felt that there were few hardcore jobs that would improve my skills. Nortel was an exception before it closed down.
That said, Canada is a pretty nice place to live. Immigrants aren't expected to assimilate. Rather, society is supposed to be enriched by your diversity. My family immigrated to Canada when I was a teenager and I've always been grateful to the country for accepting us. It's unfortunate that I've had to leave her to pursue educational and professional growth opportunities in the US. Not sure where my future lies ... but I miss Canada dearly.
And that only takes three years of continuous residency.
Compare with the US: must make the H-1B quota, wait years, apply for Green card, wait even more years (EB-3 is what, 6-7 years at this point?), then get your green card. The entire time you're an indentured slave to your employer who can take advantage of you every which way knowing you're locked in. Barbaric.
For skilled workers, you're in if belong to a narrow category of professions and have worked for a year in the field[0], or you have a job offer. Otherwise, you need to score enough points[1] on this semi asinine questionnaire.
Things that work in your favour: Knowledge of French alongside English, a bachelor's degree, having studied in canada, being 21-49 years old, having lots of work experience, having a spouse with lots of work experience or who is studying or working in Canada, and having immediate family in Canada.
Frankly, I think we could do a lot to improve this scenario since there is this perverse catch 22 where a lot of employers (for good and bad reasons) will not heed attention to foreign qualifications claiming you lack "Canadian experience". This results in having engineers and doctors drive cabs for a living which feels... unethical.
On the other hand, my personal experience with immigration suggests that a majority of people skirt around the legal pipeline precisely because this system, while somewhat more humane than the US, is still somewhat too onerous.
[0] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/apply-who.asp [1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index....
Personally, I'd take this approach over letting anyone who claims to have an engineering or medical degree practice obtain certification and practice accordingly.
He had years of international consulting experience in Asia, flying all over the world. Nobody would acknowledge either his education (masters degree) nor his >10-year experience in the field.
His path was: factory line worker -> IT infrastructure wiring guy -> front-line customer service phone jockey -> senior customer service phone jockey -> DBA -> consultant. So at least he's back where he belongs. Honestly, I think it was years wasted.
The Canadian government's definition of "valuable international education/experience" is rarely ever acknowledged by private industry - licensed/regulated field or otherwise.
No prospect of ever leaving my employer unless I'm willing to go back to the other side of the pond...
The guy came out as gay but wouldn't let people know he wasn't a citizen ... that's deep.
The issue is just getting bigger however: I find it scary that policies have gone so far that a Dutch citizen has to go live in Belgium or Spain once married so that their spouse can get a work permit and eventually gain EU citizenship...
I doubt this will change many people's minds about immigration though. The "what part of illegal don't you understand" crowd is also the "fuck you, i've got mine" crowd, and they've already got theirs.
Has that ever happened? Reading this gives me a sense of cognitive dissonance between the US as a place 'where anyone can make it' and the US as a legalistic bureaucracy.
[Edit to clarify]
For all it faults, America remains the most meritocratic country in the world. Discouraging ILLEGAL immigration should not lower America's standing in that respect.
This needs a citation. America-is-great chest pounding aside, the only reputable reference I remember seeing about this was from the Economist, who claimed that the correlation between your wealth and that of your parents is stronger in the US than in many European countries. So it seems that, at least measured in that way, the US is not a particularly good meritocracy but rather a class society.
I suppose by "anyone can make it" we could literally mean, "irrespective of your abilities anyone can make it", but I don't think that's the sense most people mean and that's not the meaning of meritocracy. Talent and/or a hard working mien are not bestowed randomly at birth.
This is an assertion which, conveniently enough for those on the top, is entirely indistinguishable from a class society. It could be that you are right and that all the low-wage workers in the U.S. are low-wage because they are just plain dumb and not at all because they never had any of the opportunities growing up that children of well-off parents do. Personally, I don't put nearly so much power in genetic determinism.
tl;dr: there are big differences between countries in the impact of parental education and earnings on the education and earnings of their kids. Parental success is a very strong determiner of both in the U.S., but much less so in, say, Canada and Finland (both of which are among the top four best-scoring countries on the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment).
The genetics you can't avoid, but the point of a true meritocracy is that you don't have the environmental factors.
I suppose by "anyone can make it" we could literally mean, "irrespective of your abilities anyone can make it"
No, that's not what it means. It means that if you have the competence to suceed, society won't hold you back. Environmental factors are all about lifting some people, and holding others back via society.
Another way to put this, if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were raised in Watts, what are the chances they'd resemble the ppl they are now? 50%? .01%?
"It looks as if the American Dream is far more likely to remain a dream for Americans than it is for people living in Scandinavian countries. Greater inequalities of outcome seem to make it easier for rich parents to pass on their advantages. While income differences have widened in Britain and the USA, social mobility has slowed."
The elite , about the top 2-10% in those countries own most of the businesses, and like things the way they are - no need for political change, as the remittances take some of the pressure for change off, while they eventually end up pocketing a large portion of the remittances due to those monies being spent for products and services (at the businesses they own).
We need immigration reform. It is unconscionable that people who grew up here are put in this situation.
I've been thinking the best way to get reform is to force the government to strictly enforce the I-9 requirement. If every business owner was forced to adhere to the law and only hire those legally eligible, they would be in favor of reform as well.
We have a situation where people complain about "illegal immigrants" while silently profiting from them. If the reality of the situation were exposed, I think Republicans would suddenly find themselves in agreement with Democrats about reform.
Also, it seems to me that actually making immigration from and to anywhere on the planet would pretty much force governments to actually compete with each other, a country in which nobody wants to live is not a country that will stick around for long if everyone is free to leave at their choosing. Wouldn't this be a net positive, really?
"come in legally"
The adult who put him in the situation is not in the country. At least one of the others responsible is dead.
Basically, all you are suggesting is: go find a "citizen" to trap in matrimony in order to be a legal immigrant?
The matrimony route is especially relevant, since in the US it is the one of the faster means to obtaining citizenship compared to other methods immigrate legally.
Here is the reference:
http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad...
You can become a permanent resident by getting married, but the process isn't straightforward. The draconian requirement that the newly-married couple leave the US reduces some fraud, I'm sure, but it also causes an enormous amount of disruption for the 99% of legitimately married couples who have families and livelihoods within the US.
IANAL but you are definitely misinformed about this, and should not allow it to interfere with your love life.
I am all for letting Vargas stay, and for liberalizing this country's immigration policies.
But would going abroad for 10 years really be so bad?
Vargas has proven himself to be an accomplished professional writer and should have no problem finding work pretty much anywhere he goes.
As a writer and a reporter he would gain valuable international experience by living and writing abroad. He could see the world. reunite with his mother and brother, learn something about his country of origin.. and, who knows, he might find he prefers the Philippines (or some other country) even more than the US.
He does have a life in America and that's the country he's most used to, so leaving won't be easy; but he said he hasn't let himself get too close to anyone here, so that should make it somewhat easier to move somewhere else.
When you're young 10 years might seem like a long time, but it's really not that long in the scheme of things. If he's in his 20's now, he'll be in his 30's when he gets back -- plenty of time left to rebuild his life here, should he wish to.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee he would be allowed back in, and it would be stressful or even dangerous not to be able to come back in in the meantime, should he need to for some reason. So it's certainly not an enviable position to be in; but it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world to go abroad for 10 years -- many people do so gladly and willingly.
Serious inquiries only please, this project is likely to require a significant commitment of financial and/or political capital.
It all depends on which law or section of law specifically you end up breaking. A first offense for knowingly hiring an undocumented worker will be met with fines and the fines increase through the third offense. The government however has been increasingly using criminal penalties. Hiring more then ten will also much more often result in criminal penalties including prison time. Aiding and abetting, hiding from detection or encouraging aliens to enter the country is a felony unless I misunderstand the penalties in Title 8 and I know for a fact that's what one client we did an audit for is being charged with. Knowingly accepting fraudulent documents on the Form I-9 is punishable by up to five years in prison due to the certification statement in section two.
Detection rates of undocumented workers are mostly low due to employers not caring or not understanding what their requirements are under the law and lax enforcement by ICE/DHS. ICE however is stepping up investigations and just sent out another 1000 notices of intent to businesses of all sizes. We specialize in Form I-9 compliance and we constantly detect undocumented workers as part of that work. Companies that are enrolled in E-Verify are preventing many undocumented workers from even applying for jobs. Both the Senate and House are looking at bills that would make E-Verify mandatory for all employers which would make the detection rates a lot higher than they are now. Rumor has it that Senate Dems will kill these types of bills unless the Dream act passes but we'll see how long Reid can keep that up.
I find your comment offensive. EDIT: I see that you have added some context to clarify below. Likewise, I would like to clarify that this effort is intended to be wholly within the law, and the aim is to put legal resources in place for lobbying and/or litigation. I'm not mentioning the academic persons in question because it's a large effort that will probably take several years and which has not yet been presented for discussion in a law review or as a public proposal, and I don't want to misspeak about what stage the project is at.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification and the reason for being vague. I understand your intent much more clearly now.
RandyHelzerman 7 hours ago | link [dead]
What really has to sink in is that there are at least 11 million people in this guy's situation. I can't think of a single example in history of 11 million people being forcibly removed from a country, and any analogous parallels are quite ominous. Fact:(1) they are staying here Fact:(2) there are real, tangible costs to them, you, and society as a whole for them to remain undocumented. Conclusion: There should be a path to citizenship for them.
I find the secret ban system to be odious.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.13
6 or 20 years for most crimes, except murders.
Immigration violations seems to not have the statute of limitations, just like the most heinous crimes.
Edit: IANAL. You want to be very wary of any blanket statements on immigration law in particular, which is more complicated than almost any other field besides tax law. Like, I can show you decisions where the Chief Justice of the Supreme court simply makes inaccurate statements about the law by mistake. And others that seem to contradict what I've said above (but where the contradiction is in dicta rather than being part of the holding).
You could even build a startup out of it... USMailOrderSpouses.com.
http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/mar...
By this time, Peter, who still works at The Post, had become part of management as the paper's director of newsroom training and professional development. One afternoon in late October, we walked a couple of blocks to Lafayette Square, across from the White House. Over some 20 minutes, sitting on a bench, I told him everything: the Social Security card, the driver's license, Pat and Rich, my family.
This indicates that Peter Perl was a manager at the Post and knowingly continued to employee an undocumented worker opening the Post and himself to liability including possible criminal penalties.
I'd also be willing to bet that his employer will continue to employ the writer even if he's deported to the Philippines, and that may have been one of the things that informed his decision to write this piece.
While I'd like to see comprehensive immigration reform, I am always afraid of the perfect being the enemy of the good. There should be immediate incremental fixes to solve as many things as possible, vs. blocking everything on one perfect fix (which probably doesn't exist).
I think it's fairly widely accepted that the cost/benefit ratio of bringing in educated entrepreneurs freely is far better than unrestricted immigration. There may be non-economic reasons to support family reunification, asylum, or diversity, but the economic argument for letting entrepreneurs relocate to the US freely is slam-dunk; the argument for highly skilled workers being fast tracked to green cards and citizenship is comparatively strong too.
I've heard of quite a few speakers and musicians that were technically banned, Nelson Mandela comes to mind, but had so much overwhelming support from businesses and congress that ICE had no option but to overturn it. He's got a Pulitzer and a few bestselling books, I'm sure he can spin that into a proper visa.
here's your perfectly insightful and worthwhile comment which no one else can see unless they enable "show dead":
wunderfool 7 hours ago | link [dead]
legal immigrant (now citizen) here immigration is a pain in the ass. we stood in line at the INS at 3am (back before they instituted appointments), and i'm not just talking tech people...i mean everyone, from all over the world and all walks of life. it sucked but we all did it. we stood in lines and paid the fees and waited and followed the rules. if you don't, adios. i have zero, ZERO pity for everyone who has tried to come across as a charity case when they really just wanted to jump the line or not deal at all. to even get back in line i would assess a $10k fine on all of you, regardless of income or background. -----
The immigration system needs reform. We need a point based system like Canada and work permit for low skill farm jobs like that in the middle east/singapore. But this does not mean giving general amnesty to llegals. That will just encourage more to cross the border illegally.
I agree with the republicans - We need a strong border and a legal immigration reform.
You think I have sympathy for you, Vargas? I married my wife, who was on H1B while I was on Greencard. She got laid off. Were we permitted to live together as a family in the USA? Nope. Even though she'd been here close to 10 years herself - doing grad school and then working. Yes, legally, and paying taxes all the long. You would think America would try to make it easy for english speaking, educated (in the US, no less), LEGAL immigrants who waited in line. Nope. Our son was even born in America. Proof to all the stupid republicans and teabaggers that there's no such thing as "anchor babies", not like we gave a fuck about that. Kids can't sponsor their parents till 21 years of age. So my wife and son had to go to Canada, to live with my parents, while I sorted shit out. I'm sponsoring her - but the waiting list is fucking what, 4 years long?!! Ya, the short wait times for sponsoring a spouse only applied to citizens. I have to wait till sept 2012 before I can apply for that. Jesus christ. America rocks. So now my wife visits on a vistor visa, with our American son, good for only 3 months at a time. Each time she's interrogated for an hour when she crosses the border because of this fucked up situation (US immigration are supposed to keep out visitors who they think are trying to live in america). She's been warned to not push it and not to come back too often. This is fucked up. I'm ready to fucking give up if it wasn't for all the shit we've been through to get here. I've always got my eye on potential opportunities back in Canada or abroad. I've got a good gig here that I actually like, but fuck, is it worth all the hurdles and bool shit of being separated from family and crossing borders every other weekend? Just to be LEGAL? My wife could have stayed here illegally. But we're not like that. We followed the fucking law and basically got fucked. So screw off vargas. No tears for you.
At the moment, so-called liberals whatever reason are more concerned about ILLEGAL immigrants than legal immigrants.
Do you know how many legal immigrants' green cards got delayed the last time there was an amnesty program for illegals? Do you think the US govt. will hire more immigration dept. workers if illegals start getting legalized. They don't even hire people in the patent office! Every legal immigrant in the green card queue hopes that an amnesty program won't get passed until he/she gets the green card.
IMHO, there are practical reasons why gdilla is concerned about illegals getting preferential treatment.
I wish I could be in business of approving/rejecting immigration petitions. That would be a very profitable enterprise.
The problem is that US society is not culturally ready to stop unfair discrimination toward immigrants.
I'm sure Jose Vargas is ready to pay for getting his legal status.
But immigration quotas should be removed (or at least significantly increased).
Go ahead and call me a xenophobe now. Whatev.
I think it is in poor form for the NYT to print this manipulative article that tries to make me feel bad for the gay, minority, do-gooder author and excuse his years of criminally fraudulent behavior.
Sure, call me heartless. But, this guy is cheating you, and not in the "Oh cool hack" kind of way. He is cheating you in a Bernie-Madoff-conned-me-out-of-my-money-for-ponzi-investments-so-that-he-could-live-a-cushy-life kind of way.
*His family* (...). His chances of (...) *if his family* (...)
Part of what makes a wealthy nation, hum... wealthy, is the fact that it has enough resources to offer opportunities and services to the whole population. The US can give opportunities for you, him or any one that shows the necessary abilities.
Of course all that fails if, like you say, there would be no "next in line" because there is no "line", but somehow I think there is. I tend to think there are a finite number of schools, colleges, internships, and jobs. But that seems to be the core of our argument and I may need to change the way I view opportunities in nations.
Being a journalist is much more than being a reporter.
From what I can tell he's not working under table. (i.e. taxes are being withheld and paid on behalf of whatever social security number he's using.) And he obviously was unable to avail himself of college financial help due to his immigration status, so it seems pretty unlikely that he's able to be a drain on many other social programs.
So how he is cheating me?
But, he was not a minor or forced against his will when he decided to check the citizen box on the I-9, or when he decided to pursue a writing career in New York instead of Manilla, or every time he decided as an adult to stay in the USA while knowing he was here illegally.
Nations are basically large families.
Imagine you spent your whole life thinking you were part of Family A. But then, you discovered you weren't biologically part of Family A or actually adopted by Family A, instead Family A kidnapped you. Would you be inclined to stay with Family A, or would you seek out Family P - your biological family? Similarly, would you want to stay with Nation A or go seek out Nation P?
I would go seek out Nation P.
Do you disagree that nations are basically large families? Am I in the wrong to want to hypothetically seek out my biological family or nation of origin?
Or, do you disagree with my viewpoint and want me to shut up?
Immigration is the official process of adoption into this large family. Illegal immigrants are masquerading as family members. Yeah, the situation sucks for this guy, but he has not gone through the official adoption process either. Instead, he wants us to think that it is cool that he has been knowingly stealing opportunities from legit members of the American family, and that gall, that cheating behavior, just doesn't sit right with me.
I cannot condone it.
http://www.american-pictures.com/genealogy/we.are.all.cousin...
Sorry, dude, but I just can't have a productive discussion with you. This kind of xenophobic attitude is reprehensible in my opinion, and I just don't see either of us changing each others' minds.
Let's assume for a moment that he "stole" writing jobs from legal American citizens (or legal aliens). Let's also assume for the moment that the hiring processes for those jobs were concerned with finding the best candidate for the position.
I don't want a "real American" to fill that position. I want the best person for the job to fill that position. If a citizen/legal alien is actually the best person for the job, that's great. But if not: I don't care who it is, where he/she comes from, or what his/her immigration status is.
Maybe for a job like a newspaper/magazine writer, it isn't absolutely critical to have the best person possible in that job. But for other jobs it's certainly important, and regardless, I'm not willing to make that value judgement.
Pre 1940s Europe is a transnational jumble of overlapping ethnic groups. Result: war after war after war.
Post 40s and 50s after millions of people relocate to their linguistic and ethnic homelands and coalesce into new nations carved out of empires: lasting peace. Last major war was in former Yugoslavia, which failed to get with the ethnic nationalist program.
Hell, even Belgium is falling apart now. You are dead wrong on this. Ethnic nationalism is the only system that works, long term.
(Any answer other than "yes" is a cop-out or word-play.)
Wouldn't your statement then be implying that the US would be better off without a large part of its congress, its best teachers, and scientists?
In the long term - we are all heat decay. In the short term, all we need is a set of common values we agree on.
Would you be interested in a summary of 20th century armed conflicts, classified by the type of states involved? There are a couple in Asia and Africa I'm thinking of.
This is one of the things that's so great about America. It wasn't founded on an ethnicity; but an idea. But if you go to some of the other (more backward) countries, people still think of American as an ethnicity.
This "country they don't know" falsehood is parroted by some people, and I find it very disingenuous. You don't have to lie to make your case. People immigrate to the US from other countries at all ages, and get along just fine. There's no reason that an American can't immigrate to his/her place of birth either. Growing up American doesn't make a person dumb, you know.
The immigration laws in this country were practically constructed to create this exact situation, and the same politicians who voted these draconian laws onto the books have persistently underfunded and frustrated the very systems designed to help enforce them, like entry-exit databases and the like.
No he has a choice and he chooses to risk being busted and live in the land of opportunities. He can live legally. He can choose to go back to the native country of his parents and start a legal life there. He has graduated from a university in the US. He has done work in the US. He is much better off resume-wise than many of his peers.
There are a lot of people who are technically citizens of other places but who arrived in the US at such a young age that they have no memory of ever living abroad, and often don't even speak the language. Why should such people suddenly find themselves excluded from legal participation in the workforce when they reach adulthood? From a constitutional standpoint it's a very problematic question, because those persons are at a significant disadvantage without having broken any laws.
AFAIK, immigrants (whether legal or illegal) are in a gray area wrt constitutional protections. For example, on entry all aliens (including perm. residents) are fingerprinted whereas citizens are not. The lowly officer examining your papers can decide to not admit an alien into the country if you mouth off, and he's pretty much the final authority.
I seriously doubt any of things you describe are "problematic" from a constitutional point of view. It seems well-settled that aliens need not be treated the same as citizens.
The problem with that logic is that everyone is a foreigner to someone and it's a rather big world.
This raises some complex 14th amendment issues. In one sense, I'd like to see these clarified by the Supreme court. In another, I'm skeptical of the wisdom of doing so because Chief Justice roberts argued against equal treatment of illegal immigrant children in the Texas school system in a famous case called Plyler v. Doe (1982). He lost, and I have a hunch he is still a bit sore about it.
Hence, he is cheating[1].
[1] Wikipedia defines cheating as, "... the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation." That seems to be a accurate summary of the author's activities. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating.
If the game is 'obtain the opportunity to get a job' then, yup he cheated.
Barriers to entry are sometimes needed, but if the only thing you did to get over that barrier was be born on the correct side of an imaginary line, well, that just doesn't impress me.
Really, american born citizens can't complain about this without sounding like entitled brats. 'I want to win despite my lack of ability.' No sympathy there.
Foreign born citizens that worked hard through the system to get citizenship have a little to be annoyed about, but really the only class of people who can really even say 'boo' to Jose are people who faced his situation and chose to leave and then worked their way back in. If that class of people exists then I would have just one question for them:
"Would you support the DREAM act?"
I really and truly have a hard time believing that they would say, "No."
I'm from this group and I am annoyed. Yes, it sucks that being born on the right side of an imaginary line determines many of your future opportunities. Agreed. Let's change that. Agreed.
But meanwhile, there can't be anarchy. Just because you think it's unfair, you (or your parents) can't go ahead and break the rules, fake to be citizen of a place that you are not, and after enough water has passed under the bridge, come out and expect for everything to be the same, just because you lived your life in a commendable way after that.
I think it's unfair and insulting that he got the opportunity to attend schools in the US, get to do internships in the US, while thousands of children from the Philippines were not smuggled across the border and have to cope with life without such opportunities. Who knows all the great people they might have become if they had started a life in the US.