2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumObama proposes new rule for immigrant families (LA Times)
Obama proposes new rule for immigrant familiesIllegal immigrants who are immediate relatives of citizens could stay in the U.S. while applying for permanent residency. The goal is to reduce a family's time apart.
By Brian Bennett, Washington Bureau
March 30, 2012, 7:08 p.m.
WASHINGTON The Obama administration is proposing to make it easier for illegal immigrants who are immediate family members of American citizens to apply for permanent residency, a move that could affect as many as 1 million of the estimated 11 million immigrants living here illegally.
The new rule, which the Department of Homeland Security will post for public comment Monday, would reduce the time illegal immigrants are separated from their American families while seeking legal status, immigration officials said. Currently, such immigrants must leave the country to apply for a legal visa, often leading to long stints away as they await resolution of their applications.
<snip>
Many immigrants who might seek legal status do not pursue it out of fear they will not receive a "hardship waiver" of strict U.S. immigration laws: An illegal immigrant who has overstayed a visa for more than six months is barred from reentering the U.S. for three years; those who overstay more than a year are barred for 10 years.
The revised rule would allow illegal immigrants to claim that time apart from a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen would create "extreme hardship," and would permit them to remain in the country as they apply for legal status. Once approved, applicants would be required to leave the U.S. briefly, simply to return to their native country and pick up their visa.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-residency-20120331,0,1148661.story
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)families who are not in the cookie cutter 'just like Mr and Mrs Newt' type of 'sanctified' marriage.
The language as written implies that those who are discriminated against under our immigration laws are not families. I do not agree.
FlottieMae
(1 post)Before Obama proceeds with proposing a new rule for immigrant families the following should be considered:
1. Catering to illegals in an election year is clearly vote-getting prostitution. The President should be more professional and not lower himself to it.
2. Would-be immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and who have family members who are legal American citizens ARE NOT without options. They have at least two legal choices: a) go home and go through "the process;" or b) go home, take your family members with you (in order to avoid separation) and come back when "the process" is complete.
3. While most Americans are compassionate and feel a desire to help the have-nots of the world, it is unconscionable that those same disadvantaged people believe that they can continue to reproduce with abandon, expecting the U.S. to take care of them. If a person cannot afford to feed, clothe, house, educate and care for children, they SHOULD NOT HAVE THEM. Americans are neither legally nor morally responsible to clean up the mess behind you when you, Mr/Ms Illegal Immigrant, fail to take responsibility for your own actions ... and this includes family planning and contraception whether your church, tribe or government agree or not. If those entities feel strongly about those issues, it is them to whom you should turn in time of need.
America is indeed a nation built upon the strength of immigrants, but those have over the last century been LEGAL immigrants who play by the rules, learn the language, integrate and contribute to the society. To believe that this country can absorb another 10-20 million illegals without serious repercussions is pure foolishness.
The U.S. must enforce current immigration laws, reform those laws as required by the realities of today's world, secure the borders, and begin to protect American rights, freedoms and quality of the American way of life. Failure to do so will lead to the disappearance of the American Dream everyone seeks.
One can only wonder if Obama, with his myopic focus on reelection, can make the right choice.
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)because you fell in love, got married and overstayed your visa.
This type of black and white thinking is one of the things I hate most about RW talking points.
jenmito
(37,326 posts)Pisces
(5,599 posts)Response to FlottieMae (Reply #2)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Besides the millions that were brought here as slaves, and the Native Americans that were killed, indentured and faced new virulent diseases, there are millions more that were brought here under compulsion.
Nearly 1 in 4 white settlers brought from England were either indentured or shanghaied drunks.
Its not a question of absorbing 'another 10-20 million' but absorbing the 10 million (about 3% of the population) that is already here.
Ask the Republican farmers in Alabama that now face bankruptcy and will never vote Republican again.
Oh yeah and your hero, Ronald Reagan?
He signed the biggest broadest sweeping amnesty in American history
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.
But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.
In his renewed push for an immigration overhaul this week, President Obama called for Republican support for a bill to address the growing population of illegal immigrants in the country. This time, however, Republicans know better than to tread near the politically toxic A-word.
n
Was that just a 'myopic focus on reelection'.
You are ignorant, hateful, misinformed. Quite an acomplishment with a single post.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Nancy Waterman
(6,407 posts)with two small children, who see their father 3 or 4 times a year for a few days. Husband, father had been here illegally for several years. They had been married for 3 years before he was sent away for 10 years before being allowed to return. It is a ridiculous and harmful law which harms the children more than anything, and they were both born here. I completely agree with this change being proposed. there is no way around the current law if you have been here past your visa for more than a year.
idahoblue
(377 posts)The beautiful sound of repug heads exploding
Nancy Waterman
(6,407 posts)K&R