PDA

View Full Version : A CHRISTMAS STORY



okie52
12/6/2011, 06:18 PM
Deportations tear some families apart

TIJUANA, Mexico – Few words are needed when Liliana Ramos talks by phone with her youngest daughter, age 11, back in Oregon.

By Dania P. Maxwell, for USA TODAY


"Mostly we cry," she says. "All the time we cry and say, 'I love you, I miss you.' "

After living for 21 years in the U.S., Ramos, 39, was deported to Mexico in September, separated from the two daughters and son she has raised as a single mother since her ex-husband left them seven years ago.

She had lacked legal immigration status since crossing the border into the U.S. as a teenager with her parents, so the threat of arrest and deportation was always there. Even so, Lily, as she is known to friends, had hoped her clean record and two decades of work, paying taxes, going to church and providing for her U.S.-born children would allow her a path to legal status or at least avoid deportation.

Like hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants, her hopes rose with the Obama administration. In July 2010, President Obama said mass deportation of all illegal immigrants would be "intolerable" to most Americans because so many have established deep family roots, often with children who are citizens. He said they should be given a route to legal status: "Our laws should respect families following the rules instead of splitting them apart."

In June 2011, the administration announced a policy of focusing immigration enforcement on violent criminals and threats to national security rather than families with children, deep ties to their communities and no criminal records.

Six months after Obama's 2010 speech, federal agents showed up at the Bend, Ore., resort where Ramos worked as a housekeeper, handcuffed her and took her to immigration jail. She realized nothing had changed for her.

A few months after her arrest, when Obama formally announced the policy change seemingly tailored to people like her, it made no difference.

"The immigration people told me, 'No, it's not true, it's only politics,' " she says, tears flowing from her brown eyes as she chats in a small café in the neighborhood where she stays, far from the center of this border town.

The policy shift

Ramos' example points to a growing complaint from immigrant rights activists over treatment of illegal migrants who have lived law-abiding lives for years and have families here with U.S. citizenship.

It is an issue that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made a flash point in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination last month. Gingrich said he favors pathways to legal status for such long-standing residents. In words that resonate for Ramos and her children, he said in a debate: "I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families which have been here a quarter-century. I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, 'Let's be humane in enforcing the law.' "

Gingrich's remarks touched off a barrage of criticism from others in the Republican Party, which has taken a hard line toward the estimated 11 million people in this country without legal immigration status.

Advocates for immigrants say Obama's promise of humane discretion in immigration cases hasn't slowed the deportation of illegal migrants who have not been convicted of crimes. The American Immigration Lawyers Association, in a Nov. 10 report, said its examination of 252 cases pointed to an "overwhelming conclusion" that most Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field offices haven't changed their practices since the directive.

The directive outlined June 17 by ICE Director John Morton set priorities and advised "prosecutorial discretion" in enforcement decisions. It said "particular care should be given when dealing with … juveniles, and the immediate family members of U.S. citizens."

The Homeland Security Department announced last month that it would begin training immigration officers and attorneys in how to apply the priorities, will review new cases under the guidelines and start a pilot program in Denver and Baltimore to identify pending low-priority cases to be dropped.

Deportations, mostly to Mexico, reached a record 396,906 in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. About 1 million people have been deported since Obama took office, federal records show, continuing an aggressive rise in deportations through the past decade.

Obama, in a speech at the border town of El Paso in May, acknowledged the pace of deportations is a concern for many — particularly Latinos, a voter bloc that supported his election in 2008 and that he is courting for re-election in 2012. He said: "We are focusing our limited resources on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes — not families, not folks who are just looking to scrape together an income."

'We see the lack of action'

Francisco Lopez, executive director of Causa Oregon, a group that advocates for immigrants, says Ramos' case is all too familiar.

"She is a victim of a lack of implementation" of enforcement priorities, Lopez says. "We are very frustrated. We see the lack of action and relief process for cases like Liliana's, mothers with children born here. They need some type of relief in order not to be separated from their children.''

ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen says the agency was constrained by privacy laws from discussing Ramos' case in detail. However, Christensen suggested that legal proceedings that began years ago — triggered by Ramos' lawful-if-ill-advised request for legal resident status — put Ramos in a priority category.

"ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators, including immigration fugitives and those who have been previously removed from the United States," Christensen says.

Critics of the administration's immigration policy say it is providing back-door amnesty by allowing low-priority cases to be set aside, and that the act of being in United States without legal papers should be enough to warrant deportation.

"The administration … is saying unless you commit this other crime, we're creating administrative amnesty for you,'' says Ira Mehlman, of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group that seeks a crackdown on illegal immigration and limits on legal immigration.

Barbara Ghio, a Salem, Ore., immigration lawyer who represented Ramos after her arrest, says Ramos' troubles could be traced to an application for political asylum filed by Ramos and her husband in 2003. Not only was it rejected, as nearly all such applications from Mexican nationals are, she says, it brought Ramos to the attention of the agency, which then began deportation proceedings against her.

"It was basically knocking on the door of immigration" authorities, Ghio says.

After an appeal was rejected, a deportation order was issued in 2005. Ramos says she was not informed of that order. She says her ex-husband, who since has returned to Mexico, filed the papers without her consent. That asylum application, Ghio says, was based on erroneous street gossip in immigrant communities that suggested asylum was a path to legal status. She says any immigration lawyer would have strongly advised against it.

"The only thing that made her a priority was she was labeled a fugitive, and the only reason she is a fugitive is because she filed this (asylum request) without an attorney," Ghio says.

Ramos was released after her arrest in January and won a few more months to line up care for her daughters, Karleen, 11, a sixth-grader, and Ashley, 16, a high school junior. A son, Brian, 19, is looking for work and hopes to enter community college. Two relatives care for the younger children .

In September, Ramos bid a teary farewell and drove across the U.S.-Mexican border at San Ysidro, Calif., to a country where she had little connection or family. She has been sleeping in a room lent by the friend of a friend and lives off her small savings. She has been unable to find a job or get the necessary Mexican documents, including a birth certificate, that she needs to work.

Ramos says her children have discussed joining her in Mexico but she is against it. Her kids are U.S. citizens and don't know enough Spanish to transfer to Mexican schools without repeating several grades, she says. Without a job, she has no way to support them.

"The whole way we live now is different," says Brian Tapia, her son. "My sisters are going through depression. … My little sister is crying a lot. We're all really sad. … It's really hard, being without her."

Aside from the human cost, such deportations can cost U.S. taxpayers, Ghio says. Ramos is no longer paying U.S. taxes, and without a parent, her minor children could require state assistance in the future.

"The only parent they had, who was working and making some money, not a lot but some, can't support them now," she says.

Mehlman, of the FAIR group, says deported parents such as Ramos should take their children with them, even if the children are U.S. citizens. "If you are removing the parents from the country, and families are being broken up, it means the parents made that decision to break up families,'' he says. "They can take kids with them. They should take their kids with them.''

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who supports immigrants fighting deportation, says deporting mothers such as Ramos, if they take their children, amounts to "de facto deportation of U.S. citizens.''

ICE says 55% of those deported in fiscal 2011 "were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors," and 90% were in a priority category. But Ghio says ICE lumps serious, violent offenders with minor offenses and traffic cases.

Ghio says she sees heartbreaking cases regularly. She has one client now, a high school senior brought to this country when he was 9 months old, who faces deportation to Mexico after receiving a citation for possessing a small amount of marijuana. He doesn't even speak Spanish, she says. "Most people are being deported for very, very small crimes, regardless of what people are saying on TV."

In Tijuana, a sprawling city that abuts San Diego and is scarred by drug-cartel violence, it's easy to find other recent deportees. Many pay 15 pesos a night, or a little more than $1, to sleep on a hard bunk or floor of a flophouse in a decaying neighborhood a block from the border. They arrive by the hundreds every day, some in hopes of regaining entry, others trying to get back to homes elsewhere in the country.

"It's hard living here," says Richard Escobar, 45, formerly of Montebello, Calif., who says he was deported in March after failing to renew his legal resident papers. He says he arrived in the United States with his parents at age 8. "I don't know if it's being punished by God or not, but it's tough."

Ramos, driving her SUV and dressed nicely, looks like a middle-class American of Hispanic descent, so much so that other deportees can scarcely believe she shares their predicament.

She attends church almost every night. She talks at least once a day to her family in Oregon. She is hoping a miracle will allow her to return to the United States and her family, though Ghio says her legal chances are slim, and that barring a waiver or change in the law, or marriage to a U.S. citizen, she is subject to a 10-year waiting period before she can apply for re-entry.

"My daughter says, 'What happened to us? Why did this happen to us?' " Ramos says. "I miss my kids."

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/hsipaniccrying.jpg

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/DREAM-popup.jpg

pphilfran
12/6/2011, 06:22 PM
I am a sick puke...I actually laughed when I read the thread title...I knew what was coming...

okie52
12/6/2011, 06:23 PM
I am a sick puke...I actually laughed when I read the thread title...I knew what was coming...

lol, I tried to disguise it just for you.

pphilfran
12/6/2011, 06:38 PM
On the first day of Christmas My true love gave to me: An illegal in a hand cuff.

On the second day of Christmas My true love gave to me: Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff.

On the third day of Christmas My true love gave to me: Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the forth day of Christmas My true love gave to me: Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the fifth day of Christmas My true love gave to me: Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the sixth day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the seventh day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Seven illegals a-swimming Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the eight day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Eight maids a cleaning Seven illegals a-swimming Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the ninth day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Nine breeders dancing Eight maids a cleaning Seven illegals a-swimming Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the tenth day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Ten illegals running Nine breeders dancing Eight maids a cleaning Seven illegals a-swimming Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the eleventh day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Eleven mariachis playing Ten illegals running Nine breeders dancing Eight maids a cleaning Seven illegals a-swimming Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

On the Twelfth day of Christmas, My true love gave to me: Twelve shooters shooting Eleven mariachis playin Ten illegals running Nine breeders dancing Eight maids a cleaning Seven illegals a-swimming Six illegals a breeding Five golden buds Four welfare checks Three family units, Two landscapers and an illegal in a hand cuff..

badger
12/6/2011, 06:42 PM
If she had been here for 21 years she should have been able to get a green card or take a citizenship test so that her mind would be at ease.

But admittedly, I am not really familiar with the process.

okie52
12/6/2011, 06:43 PM
You are a talent. Hilarious!!

SanJoaquinSooner
12/6/2011, 11:19 PM
If she had been here for 21 years she should have been able to get a green card or take a citizenship test so that her mind would be at ease.

But admittedly, I am not really familiar with the process.

She didn't qualify for any category to apply. Her easiest path would have been to marry a U.S. citizen.

Killerbees
12/6/2011, 11:55 PM
How can she be labeled a "law abiding citizen" if she was breaking the law everyday she was here ILLEGALLY.

She no path to US citizenship or legal resident status because she is already violating immigration law. She now has a 10 year wait because of it before she can apply and the chances then are slim. She would have to marry a citizen to have any real shot at getting back in. Even then she is going to have to have a huge amount of evidence in support of the marriage to prove its legit and not just a way around the immigration laws.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/7/2011, 12:50 AM
How can she be labeled a "law abiding citizen" if she was breaking the law everyday she was here ILLEGALLY.

She no path to US citizenship or legal resident status because she is already violating immigration law. She now has a 10 year wait because of it before she can apply and the chances then are slim. She would have to marry a citizen to have any real shot at getting back in. Even then she is going to have to have a huge amount of evidence in support of the marriage to prove its legit and not just a way around the immigration laws.

Actually that is not the reason. Had she filed a petition before 2001 she could have adjusted status in the U.S. in spite of being illegally present, by paying a $1000 fine. It's based on a law referred to as 245i. She had no path because she didn't qualify for any category (employer sponsored, family sponsored, or the one she attempted: asylum). And even had she married a U.S. citizen after 2001, she would have qualified for a green card after returning to Mexico for a few months.

It's like driving without a license. It doesn't disqualify you from ever getting a driver's license. You pay a damned fine and then you get a license if you qualify.

KantoSooner
12/7/2011, 10:05 AM
Another Christmas story.

Christmas of 1993. Denver, Colorado.

I had married a Japanese woman in Japan, in February 1991 (Valentines Day, actually, awwwwwwww). We had dutifully registered our marriage at the US embassy there. When I was transferred back to the US later that year, we had applied for her Green Card and received permission for her to come join me.
In 1992, our daughter was born. The very same one who, several years later, tormented a group of Horns sitting at a bar in Singapore by running over and shouting 'Touchdown, Oklahoma!' every five minutes.
Christmas of 1993 (note timeline, INS/ICE have by this point taken almost three years to process papers that any mental deficit could have worked through in a long afternoon), we are told to appear at an admin court in Denver, for a hearing at 8 A.M., on a Saturday.
The court was a nice-ish meeting room at the back of a non-descript building in an industrial park not far from old Stapleton Airport. The hearing began.
At first there was no problem, we ran through documents, making sure that all necessary papers were properly in evidence. Then we broke for a recess.
At the coffee machine, I chatted with the judge who was doing this as an adjunct to his normal duties in the federal court in Denver. It turned out that he was an OU Law grad and had roomed in law school with a friend of my dad's. Nice guy.
We returned to the court. Our INS guy started his summation and it becomes increasingly evident that he is arguing against granting the Green Card. The grounds were murky, but something along the lines of "well, you haven't been married long and 'we see a lot of this, believe me', I just don't believe your marriage is valid'.
Having, at this point, been married (and having registered said marriage with US authorities) for over two and a half years, I was a bit nonplussed. To the rescue, my daughter.
We had her corralled in the back of the court room wiith a bunch of chairs and blankets. She was bored and started to cry. Silence from the court. Then the judge broke his silence, asking the INS guy whether there was any doubt that the marriage was legal and properly reported and registered. No, was the reply. Was there any doubt that the two of us had lived together as a married couple straight through, that my wife had entered the US legally or that any of the paperwork had been improperly filed. No. What, then, the INS guy was asked, was the problem? Well, the INS just felt that something was amiss. Could they name it? No.
Well, the judge asked, what is that back there, pointing to my daughter? Uh, doh, mmmm, their daughter, answered Mr. INS? Yes, their daughter, confirmed the judge.
The judge then looked at our heroic enforcer of immigration laws and said, "I am ruling in favor of the family. INS will issue her green card within the next two weeks. If this poses a problem, I will have US Marshals come to the Denver INS office to assist you. Are we done here? Next case."
I could have kissed him.

The moral of this story: I'm legally trained. All the paperwork was in order. We had a years long history of marriage and a child. We had dotted every i and crossed every t. And, if anything, we had a sympathetic judge. And it was still a nightmare. For us and for you, the poor saps who paid this out of control bureaucracy untold thousands of dollars to beetle brow something that most countries would have stamped at the border and been done with.
Can you imagine what this process is like if you truly an immigrant, and not simply a citizen trying to get a foreign spouse into the country? If English is your second language? If you're not familiar with Anglo-American legal procedures?

Whichever side of the debate you're on, we can all agree that our current 'system' is broken and badly needs replacing.

NormanPride
12/7/2011, 10:14 AM
No doubt, Kanto. Glad everything worked out for you.

And glad your daughter is so cool!

Killerbees
12/7/2011, 10:16 AM
Actually that is not the reason. Had she filed a petition before 2001 she could have adjusted status in the U.S. in spite of being illegally present, by paying a $1000 fine. It's based on a law referred to as 245i. She had no path because she didn't qualify for any category (employer sponsored, family sponsored, or the one she attempted: asylum). And even had she married a U.S. citizen after 2001, she would have qualified for a green card after returning to Mexico for a few months.

It's like driving without a license. It doesn't disqualify you from ever getting a driver's license. You pay a damned fine and then you get a license if you qualify.

I didnt want to delve into it to much but you are partly correct.

IF she had filed prior to 2001 she would not have to return IF she had status to file one of the immigration petitions, like a US spouse. Thats not the case here, its why I didn't mention it, I would think that 2001 being 10 years ago that this would now be a rare find for an immigration lawyer.

What does apply to her is that she stayed in the US illegally for 1 year after her 18th birthday which automatically invokes the 10 year ban on ANY petition to immigrate. Furthermore, the fact that she entered illegally means that she would not have been able to remain in the US if she had married a US citizen and filed prior to being deported. She would have had to travel back to Mexico to get her green card. Where you are wrong is that the consulate there would have informed her that she is now banned for 10 years from entering the US unless she gets a hardship waiver approved. All of these cases deal with separation so it takes more than the same old sob story about the kids, job, spouse or sick grandma to get approval.

Its a catch 22 but its currently the law. Immigration law is a mess, about as tangled as IRS, FDA, EPA, BATF or any other government agency law. It makes no sense but a person in this country illegally cannot adjust their status (get a green card) without leaving the country to their home country, UNLESS they entered the US legally (ie overstayed on a tourist visa etc). They get told by immigration that "this is the process, dont worry you just have to return to Mexico long enough to get processed through the US consulate there, 2-3 months tops then your right back here." What they conveniently leave out is that as soon as they leave they are subject to the 10 year ban. Even if they ask specifically about the 10 year ban the immigration official is able to truthfully say "No, you haven't been banned from the US for 10 years" because they haven't....yet.

okie52
12/7/2011, 10:34 AM
Another Christmas story.

Christmas of 1993. Denver, Colorado.

I had married a Japanese woman in Japan, in February 1991 (Valentines Day, actually, awwwwwwww). We had dutifully registered our marriage at the US embassy there. When I was transferred back to the US later that year, we had applied for her Green Card and received permission for her to come join me.
In 1992, our daughter was born. The very same one who, several years later, tormented a group of Horns sitting at a bar in Singapore by running over and shouting 'Touchdown, Oklahoma!' every five minutes.
Christmas of 1993 (note timeline, INS/ICE have by this point taken almost three years to process papers that any mental deficit could have worked through in a long afternoon), we are told to appear at an admin court in Denver, for a hearing at 8 A.M., on a Saturday.
The court was a nice-ish meeting room at the back of a non-descript building in an industrial park not far from old Stapleton Airport. The hearing began.
At first there was no problem, we ran through documents, making sure that all necessary papers were properly in evidence. Then we broke for a recess.
At the coffee machine, I chatted with the judge who was doing this as an adjunct to his normal duties in the federal court in Denver. It turned out that he was an OU Law grad and had roomed in law school with a friend of my dad's. Nice guy.
We returned to the court. Our INS guy started his summation and it becomes increasingly evident that he is arguing against granting the Green Card. The grounds were murky, but something along the lines of "well, you haven't been married long and 'we see a lot of this, believe me', I just don't believe your marriage is valid'.
Having, at this point, been married (and having registered said marriage with US authorities) for over two and a half years, I was a bit nonplussed. To the rescue, my daughter.
We had her corralled in the back of the court room wiith a bunch of chairs and blankets. She was bored and started to cry. Silence from the court. Then the judge broke his silence, asking the INS guy whether there was any doubt that the marriage was legal and properly reported and registered. No, was the reply. Was there any doubt that the two of us had lived together as a married couple straight through, that my wife had entered the US legally or that any of the paperwork had been improperly filed. No. What, then, the INS guy was asked, was the problem? Well, the INS just felt that something was amiss. Could they name it? No.
Well, the judge asked, what is that back there, pointing to my daughter? Uh, doh, mmmm, their daughter, answered Mr. INS? Yes, their daughter, confirmed the judge.
The judge then looked at our heroic enforcer of immigration laws and said, "I am ruling in favor of the family. INS will issue her green card within the next two weeks. If this poses a problem, I will have US Marshals come to the Denver INS office to assist you. Are we done here? Next case."
I could have kissed him.

The moral of this story: I'm legally trained. All the paperwork was in order. We had a years long history of marriage and a child. We had dotted every i and crossed every t. And, if anything, we had a sympathetic judge. And it was still a nightmare. For us and for you, the poor saps who paid this out of control bureaucracy untold thousands of dollars to beetle brow something that most countries would have stamped at the border and been done with.
Can you imagine what this process is like if you truly an immigrant, and not simply a citizen trying to get a foreign spouse into the country? If English is your second language? If you're not familiar with Anglo-American legal procedures?

Whichever side of the debate you're on, we can all agree that our current 'system' is broken and badly needs replacing.

Sounds like a mess but often dealing with the government is a slow process at best. I wish our ICE enforcers were as vigilent about true illegals as they were in your case. Unfortunately due to Obama's directive most illegals are not going to be prosecuted/deported.

KantoSooner
12/7/2011, 10:54 AM
And, here's where maybe we can find some common ground:

I like nice clear solutions as much as the next guy, but I'm willing to make some compromises in this area and perhaps grant some form of 'amnesty' if we can get a workable system in place.

I think we all agree that some form of control at the workplace is a vital component and that something like everify is a reasonable tool with which to make it work.

I think we also agree that better border control is essential. I also think we agree that hermetic borders are virtually impossible and would be horrendously expensive. We're going to live with leakage...but hopefully in the same way that the SR-71 does: paying a small price for greater overall functionality.

And I think that we all agree that these people didn't come here to sit on their butts. They came because WE wanted to hire them. So maybe we should recognize this and figure out a way for legitimate 'guest workers' (be they seasonal farm workers, whatever) to come over and do their deal.

Finally I think we all agree that when someone tries to follow the law they are deserving of a prompt answer. Even in these post 9/11 days, I really don't think it should take more than 180 days to screen all but the most difficult cases.

We've got a pretty broad base of agreement, wth some modest compromise, we could resolve this problem. It's very frustrating that every issue these days is hostage to rigid dogmatism on the national stage.

Killerbees
12/7/2011, 11:05 AM
We returned to the court. Our INS guy started his summation and it becomes increasingly evident that he is arguing against granting the Green Card. The grounds were murky, but something along the lines of "well, you haven't been married long and 'we see a lot of this, believe me', I just don't believe your marriage is valid'.
Having, at this point, been married (and having registered said marriage with US authorities) for over two and a half years, I was a bit nonplussed. To the rescue, my daughter.
We had her corralled in the back of the court room wiith a bunch of chairs and blankets. She was bored and started to cry. Silence from the court. Then the judge broke his silence, asking the INS guy whether there was any doubt that the marriage was legal and properly reported and registered. No, was the reply. Was there any doubt that the two of us had lived together as a married couple straight through, that my wife had entered the US legally or that any of the paperwork had been improperly filed. No. What, then, the INS guy was asked, was the problem? Well, the INS just felt that something was amiss. Could they name it? No.
Well, the judge asked, what is that back there, pointing to my daughter? Uh, doh, mmmm, their daughter, answered Mr. INS? Yes, their daughter, confirmed the judge.
The judge then looked at our heroic enforcer of immigration laws and said, "I am ruling in favor of the family. INS will issue her green card within the next two weeks. If this poses a problem, I will have US Marshals come to the Denver INS office to assist you. Are we done here? Next case."
I could have kissed him.

This sounds kinda like my case. I married a girl from Singapore and the saga we went through was mind boggling. There are some truly screwed up individuals that work in these place (INS, BATF, FDA, EPA etc) that love to wield their power over you and cause as much misery as possible to anyone that piques their interest. I could go on all freaking day about the fing 81tch that was assigned my case. My wife was already in the US on a tourist visa and we were already married for 8 or so years. (long story) I took the shotgun approach and just submitted a mountain of evidence, neatly binding it all up, I figured I was smart enough to do anything I wanted to do as long as I read enough on it. And the wife has never broken any laws, except getting busted with gum in Singapore, never used drugs, had no medical issues, etc, so I figured it would be a breeze.

So there we were, 1 year later, waiting on our interview with our assigned case officer. This huge blob of fat rolls in on a obviously customized (heavily reinforced and widened) motorized wheelchair/scooter with O2 hoses and tanks strapped to it. This behemoth tipped 500+ easily. Dont get me wrong, I'm fat so I dont have a problem with fat people but this woman was ridiculous. She calls out our names and says follow me. I thought she was the "physically disabled" quota hire there to show us to our case officer. The shock was terrible when she wheeled into the office and over to a desk and informed us she was the case officer handling our case. We layed our case basically repeating everything that was already included in the filing. She asked a few questions and acted totally uninterested when we were talking (fiddling with crap on her desk, writing notes on a sticky pad that clearly had nothing to do with us, checking crap on her phone, etc). After we were done she came right out and called my wife a liar and started spouting off bs about the penalties of lying to her. I was shocked speechless. My wife started refuting her claims (which were ludicrous). Finally the straw broke when my wife started crying and the fat fing 81tch had the gall to tell her to shutup with the fake crying crap because it wasnt going to work. I immediately interrupted her and told her in no uncertain terms that neither me or the wife were going to put up with this crap and she needed to change her attitude or get this case assigned to a different officer. She laughed and said something like "good luck" then told us we were done and she would inform us of the decision.

I blew up when I left that office. I have never felt so much hate for anyone in my entire life. I was seriously thinking of ways I could cost her some serious economic hurt by destroying some her property. This pathetic excuse of a life was basically going to determine mine and my wife's future on a couple hunches she had. The answer we got was we needed to file a waiver and more evidence within 30 days or the petition was going to be denied. I immediately went and got a good immigration lawyer that was just as dumbfounded as us about her attitude. The lawyer handled everything (for a nice fee of course) but the results were worth every penny. We never had to go back and see that slob. The lawyer even said the board that heard the waiver petition was confused as to why there were any questions about approving our petition in the first place. The best answer the case officer had was that the phone records from the first 5 years, to prove we called each other while my wife was visiting her home or I was deployed, weren't included.

The really crappy thing is that I bet she is there now crapping on another innocent family.



Whichever side of the debate you're on, we can all agree that our current 'system' is broken and badly needs replacing.

I agree completely. In fact, everything the government touches is broken ATF, EPA, FDA, SSA, IRS, Energy, Education and on and on. They are all just as screwed up as immigration.

pphilfran
12/7/2011, 11:16 AM
Thanks for the write ups guys!

Scary stuff...

okie52
12/7/2011, 11:39 AM
And, here's where maybe we can find some common ground:

I like nice clear solutions as much as the next guy, but I'm willing to make some compromises in this area and perhaps grant some form of 'amnesty' if we can get a workable system in place.

I think we all agree that some form of control at the workplace is a vital component and that something like everify is a reasonable tool with which to make it work.

I think we also agree that better border control is essential. I also think we agree that hermetic borders are virtually impossible and would be horrendously expensive. We're going to live with leakage...but hopefully in the same way that the SR-71 does: paying a small price for greater overall functionality.

And I think that we all agree that these people didn't come here to sit on their butts. They came because WE wanted to hire them. So maybe we should recognize this and figure out a way for legitimate 'guest workers' (be they seasonal farm workers, whatever) to come over and do their deal.

Finally I think we all agree that when someone tries to follow the law they are deserving of a prompt answer. Even in these post 9/11 days, I really don't think it should take more than 180 days to screen all but the most difficult cases.

We've got a pretty broad base of agreement, wth some modest compromise, we could resolve this problem. It's very frustrating that every issue these days is hostage to rigid dogmatism on the national stage.

Amnesty I absolutely do not want. I don't want birthrite citizenship either for illegals. If guest worker programs were available that did not afford birthrite citizenship for their offspring then that might be palatable. You do know that if 12,000,000 illegals were granted amnesty then under family reuinification the rest of their family can immigrate? You can expand that 12,000,000 figure to 40,000,000 in the next decade and then it will just grow exponentially from there.

And these illegals are breeders.

Right now approximately 1/10 of Mexico is here illegally. I sure don't want to see that grow to 20-30%.

KantoSooner
12/7/2011, 12:09 PM
let's try this, then: put an eVerify type plan in place for some period (a year, two? I'm open) to cull out those who have no real ties. If you can't work AND no one else in your family can, legally, either, you'll soon be gone.
Hell, I'd be in favor of helping illegals who want to go home with transport costs.
At least then we'd have a better handle on a smaller number.

If we're going to sort this mess out, we can't take anything off the table.

okie52
12/7/2011, 01:15 PM
let's try this, then: put an eVerify type plan in place for some period (a year, two? I'm open) to cull out those who have no real ties. If you can't work AND no one else in your family can, legally, either, you'll soon be gone.
Hell, I'd be in favor of helping illegals who want to go home with transport costs.
At least then we'd have a better handle on a smaller number.

If we're going to sort this mess out, we can't take anything off the table.

I wouldn't want everify to just last 2 years...more like forever. I agree with the no work, no benefits, no birthrite citizenship, punishing employers, sanctuary cities, etc...will help to eliminate the problem. Guest workers are fine as a compromise but only as long as no citizenship, no birthrite citizenship goes along with the deal.

soonercruiser
12/7/2011, 01:31 PM
So....
Does this make Obama the Grinch?

KantoSooner
12/7/2011, 02:54 PM
I wouldn't want everify to just last 2 years...more like forever. I agree with the no work, no benefits, no birthrite citizenship, punishing employers, sanctuary cities, etc...will help to eliminate the problem. Guest workers are fine as a compromise but only as long as no citizenship, no birthrite citizenship goes along with the deal.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. My intent was that, if we couldn't come up with a workable compromise now, then at least put eVerify in place for a couple of years to see if we could pare down the number of people we're dealing with...and discourage more illegals crossing over.
Ultimately something like eVerify is going to be required (and, yes, for the tin foil hat crowd, that MIGHT mean, in effect, a national ID number - so be it) on a permanent basis. And that most definitely includes punishing employers, hopefully with something meaningful, like jail time.
At the same time, I think we need to look very honestly at exactly why we have, for at least the last 100 years, been hiring from south of the border and address whether we want to legalize at least some portion of that trade. And that discussion might well lead to guest workers.
I would suggest that tackling birthright citizenship is best treated separately. Firstly, there are some serious historical issues at play here which are going to inflame debate. Secondly, it's a Constitutional issue which will make it very hard to change. I would hate to think we'd stubbornly refuse to solve 80% of the problem in order to force the other 20%...next year, 10 years from now, 100 years from now or never.

Finally, the reason I suggested starting with eVerify is that the bullheaded insistence that the border be sealed first is not workable. So long as there is a steady source of work here, the illegals will come. You have to shut off the demand side first. Secondly, sealing the borders does nothing about those who are here already. EVerify addresses both and will reinforce whatever we ultimately do on the border security front.

There was an interesting article this morning in the Tulsa paper that showed that illegal migration north out of Mexico peaked ten years ago. And is now running around 20% of that peak number and falling fast. (this in the face of a near-beer civil war in Mexico is astounding). Our problem, increasingly, is not illegal immigration so much as illegals living here already.

okie52
12/7/2011, 03:17 PM
Perhaps I wasn't clear. My intent was that, if we couldn't come up with a workable compromise now, then at least put eVerify in place for a couple of years to see if we could pare down the number of people we're dealing with...and discourage more illegals crossing over.
Ultimately something like eVerify is going to be required (and, yes, for the tin foil hat crowd, that MIGHT mean, in effect, a national ID number - so be it) on a permanent basis. And that most definitely includes punishing employers, hopefully with something meaningful, like jail time.
At the same time, I think we need to look very honestly at exactly why we have, for at least the last 100 years, been hiring from south of the border and address whether we want to legalize at least some portion of that trade. And that discussion might well lead to guest workers.
I would suggest that tackling birthright citizenship is best treated separately. Firstly, there are some serious historical issues at play here which are going to inflame debate. Secondly, it's a Constitutional issue which will make it very hard to change. I would hate to think we'd stubbornly refuse to solve 80% of the problem in order to force the other 20%...next year, 10 years from now, 100 years from now or never.

Finally, the reason I suggested starting with eVerify is that the bullheaded insistence that the border be sealed first is not workable. So long as there is a steady source of work here, the illegals will come. You have to shut off the demand side first. Secondly, sealing the borders does nothing about those who are here already. EVerify addresses both and will reinforce whatever we ultimately do on the border security front.

There was an interesting article this morning in the Tulsa paper that showed that illegal migration north out of Mexico peaked ten years ago. And is now running around 20% of that peak number and falling fast. (this in the face of a near-beer civil war in Mexico is astounding). Our problem, increasingly, is not illegal immigration so much as illegals living here already.

The numbers of illegals crossing the border probably did peak about 3-4 years ago when the economy started to tank. But that is only a temporary situation until the economy gets better. Then we can start the whole process again like when Reagan gave 3,000,000 illegals amnesty and we were going to have border control and that would be the end of the problem. Well 25 years later and 4 times the number of illegals and nothing was solved.

The problem with solving only 80% of the problem is it could lead to a much bigger problem...like family reunification which could triple the number of illegals (although they would be legal then) in the country. Then there is the birthrite citizenship for the guest workers that have kids here in the US. Same old argument would arise with about splitting up families, etc....

I disagree about border security though. It can be achieved. Of course I would use landmines which would be very economical.

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/7/2011, 03:23 PM
If you get kicks out of other's (besides whorns, pokes or aggies) sorrow, you should probably seek a psychiatrist for Christmas.

SicEmBaylor
12/7/2011, 03:41 PM
Their tears of despair and heartbreak are utterly delicious.

SicEmBaylor
12/7/2011, 03:42 PM
If you get kicks out of other's (besides whorns, pokes or aggies) sorrow, you should probably seek a psychiatrist for Christmas.
The misery of others often warms my cold heart. I probably should...I'm a hoot and a holler around the holidays.

okie52
12/7/2011, 03:43 PM
If you get kicks out of other's (besides whorns, pokes or aggies) sorrow, you should probably seek a psychiatrist for Christmas.

Being a doormat can't be healthy. I'm sure a psychiatrist would have some empowering therapy for that affliction.

okie52
12/7/2011, 03:46 PM
The misery of others often warms my cold heart. I probably should...I'm a hoot and a holler around the holidays.

Hahahahhaha

okie52
12/7/2011, 03:54 PM
Their tears of despair and heartbreak are utterly delicious.

Even better.

KantoSooner
12/7/2011, 04:33 PM
Okie, it occurs to me that citing Reagan's policies kind of bolsters my arguments: we amnestied some, beefed up the border some and did jack all to address demand....and the numbers kept rising.
Landmines, by the way, would be relatively speaking cheap, but have all sorts of unintended consequences, like getting washed downstream during thunderstorm events, blowing up cattle and providing easy munitions for drug cartels who have metal detectors. Still, enough to cover a 2,000 mile border wouldn't come for nickels and dimes.

But, and this is the point, we could all get cozy and buy a drink and discuss how best to secure the border and spend all winter doing it. And, if we have eVerify in place in the meantime, we'd have the happy news, come spring, that the problem was significantly smaller than it is now.

Plus, it's never good policy to seek out opportunities to be a ****. Even to people who've been ****s to you. If you can possibly do so, keep to the high road. Pays dividends. If we can get any part of the problem resolved without truckloads of weeping women and children plastered all over the hemisphere's evening news, it's worth doing. No cameras are going to show up and nobody's going to protest when three roofers can't get picked up in the Albertson's parking lot because their SSN and Name didn't check out on the boss man's iphone app. But after a month or so of that, they'll go home...and the other paisans in their village may not make the attempt. It's not a 100% solution, but it's something that can be done and done now, I think. And should be something that Democrats and Republicans can both get mileage out of on the campaign trail.

okie52
12/7/2011, 05:17 PM
Okie, it occurs to me that citing Reagan's policies kind of bolsters my arguments: we amnestied some, beefed up the border some and did jack all to address demand....and the numbers kept rising.
Landmines, by the way, would be relatively speaking cheap, but have all sorts of unintended consequences, like getting washed downstream during thunderstorm events, blowing up cattle and providing easy munitions for drug cartels who have metal detectors. Still, enough to cover a 2,000 mile border wouldn't come for nickels and dimes.

But, and this is the point, we could all get cozy and buy a drink and discuss how best to secure the border and spend all winter doing it. And, if we have eVerify in place in the meantime, we'd have the happy news, come spring, that the problem was significantly smaller than it is now.

Plus, it's never good policy to seek out opportunities to be a ****. Even to people who've been ****s to you. If you can possibly do so, keep to the high road. Pays dividends. If we can get any part of the problem resolved without truckloads of weeping women and children plastered all over the hemisphere's evening news, it's worth doing. No cameras are going to show up and nobody's going to protest when three roofers can't get picked up in the Albertson's parking lot because their SSN and Name didn't check out on the boss man's iphone app. But after a month or so of that, they'll go home...and the other paisans in their village may not make the attempt. It's not a 100% solution, but it's something that can be done and done now, I think. And should be something that Democrats and Republicans can both get mileage out of on the campaign trail.

Kanto-Except none of the reagan promises about border security were ever done...just lip service to see the amnesty get passed. Nothing done at all about employers, employment verification, etc...just some hope that illegal immigration would go away. Even some of Reagan's former cabinet members now say it was a mistake.

I do agree that everify would help although it is a far from perfect system. And, allowing state and federal agencies along with hospitals, schools, etc.. to communicate with each other when an illegal is found would greatly reduce the problem. Then, of course, sanctuary cities and employers should be severely punished for their complicity.

While the landmines are a bit of hyperbole it is not that far from the force we must be prepared to use to protect our borders. And killing drug cartels as a byproduct would be a good thing. I would much rather have our troops here at home patroling our borders than patroling Iraq or Afghanistan...or S Korea, Japan, Germany, et al for that matter.

My high road evaporated 5 years ago when I saw thousands of illegals demanding their rights on cinco de mayo in Liberal KS. Now most Hispanics I know here in the states (legal or illegal) are good people. Probably among my favorites. But the sense of entitlement that many of the hispanics have regarding illegal immigration exhausts any compassion I might otherwise have for them. The fact that most will vote in support of illegal immigration and/or amnesty and try to use this blackmail on any politicians seeking to end it further alienates their cause from my good will. Plus, the weeping carloads of weeping women and children are self inflicted casualties. They knew the risks but then seem surprised when the bill comes due.

That, and I enjoy ruffling the feathers of the PC crowd that agrees with these illegal entitlements...you know, the crowd that sees any state that tries to reduce illegals in their state as racist or supports Obama when he fights all the way to the supreme court to keep illegal hiring employers from being punished.

KantoSooner
12/7/2011, 05:29 PM
Your last paragraph has been an item of mystificatioin for me as well. As most employers are Republicans, you'd think Obama would be out there leading the tar and feather mob.

Another random comment: I'd like to be very careful with anymore firepower getting into the cartels' hands. They've got quite enough already. So far, they've been, just barely, keeping the big nastiness on their side of the line. We really, really don't want the expense and blood shed of for real street battles in our border cities.

I guess I don't see why we don't get going with what we can do now instead of insisting that a perfect plan be drafted, debated and duly passed by congress, funded, nifty uniforms made up, maybe an advertising campaign ...oh and T-shirts! can't forget the T-shirts!

My hyperbole, of course, but we've been going around and around on this most of my adult life. Before I get really old and die, I would appreciate it if we took even modest steps...especially since we have some that seem like they'd do at least some good.

okie52
12/7/2011, 05:57 PM
Your last paragraph has been an item of mystificatioin for me as well. As most employers are Republicans, you'd think Obama would be out there leading the tar and feather mob.

Another random comment: I'd like to be very careful with anymore firepower getting into the cartels' hands. They've got quite enough already. So far, they've been, just barely, keeping the big nastiness on their side of the line. We really, really don't want the expense and blood shed of for real street battles in our border cities.

I guess I don't see why we don't get going with what we can do now instead of insisting that a perfect plan be drafted, debated and duly passed by congress, funded, nifty uniforms made up, maybe an advertising campaign ...oh and T-shirts! can't forget the T-shirts!

My hyperbole, of course, but we've been going around and around on this most of my adult life. Before I get really old and die, I would appreciate it if we took even modest steps...especially since we have some that seem like they'd do at least some good.

I have a son in the Army at Ft Bliss in El Paso. Other than the year he went to Iraq he has been stationed there for almost 4 years. In March of 2009 they had to do border patrol because the violence got so bad in Juarez there was a great concern about a spill over into El Paso. They did round up some illegals crossing the border and caused a suspected drug cartel caravan to turn back during the 2 months they were on patrol. A very, very real concern in that area (the violence and arms). They have been on other border patrols for the last 4 years but that one in 2009was the only time they were prepared to fire on suspects (or so my son told me).

Politics, as usual, are keeping any real improvements from occurring on immigration. Obama could easily send troops to the border to secure it but he won't until he gets concessions from the pubs on amnesty.

At this point out of total frustration I would just about be willing to accept amnesty and border security as a package if they would eliminate family reuinification for the next 50 years.

soonercoop1
12/7/2011, 07:10 PM
And, here's where maybe we can find some common ground:

I like nice clear solutions as much as the next guy, but I'm willing to make some compromises in this area and perhaps grant some form of 'amnesty' if we can get a workable system in place.

I think we all agree that some form of control at the workplace is a vital component and that something like everify is a reasonable tool with which to make it work.

I think we also agree that better border control is essential. I also think we agree that hermetic borders are virtually impossible and would be horrendously expensive. We're going to live with leakage...but hopefully in the same way that the SR-71 does: paying a small price for greater overall functionality.

And I think that we all agree that these people didn't come here to sit on their butts. They came because WE wanted to hire them. So maybe we should recognize this and figure out a way for legitimate 'guest workers' (be they seasonal farm workers, whatever) to come over and do their deal.

Finally I think we all agree that when someone tries to follow the law they are deserving of a prompt answer. Even in these post 9/11 days, I really don't think it should take more than 180 days to screen all but the most difficult cases.

We've got a pretty broad base of agreement, wth some modest compromise, we could resolve this problem. It's very frustrating that every issue these days is hostage to rigid dogmatism on the national stage.

Don't have a problem making some of them legal immigrants but refuse to grant any of them "citizen" status...

SicEmBaylor
12/7/2011, 07:19 PM
What a country of 300 million people needs is more immigrants!

And the argument that we need more people in order to fit specialized roles is asinine. The number of people that meet that criteria is so low that it hardly justifies an open immigration policy. If anything, that just means we need to do a better job of educating and training our own citizens to fit those roles.

okie52
12/7/2011, 10:21 PM
What a country of 300 million people needs is more immigrants!

And the argument that we need more people in order to fit specialized roles is asinine. The number of people that meet that criteria is so low that it hardly justifies an open immigration policy. If anything, that just means we need to do a better job of educating and training our own citizens to fit those roles.

Surely you aren't suggesting we deny the American dream to the rest of the world? After all we are a nation of immigrants.

soonercruiser
12/7/2011, 10:33 PM
What a country of 300 million people needs is more immigrants!

And the argument that we need more people in order to fit specialized roles is asinine. The number of people that meet that criteria is so low that it hardly justifies an open immigration policy. If anything, that just means we need to do a better job of educating and training our own citizens to fit those roles.

How about this plan?
We let all the immigrants with advanced technical degrees and inventions immigrate....
And deport an equal number of the slackers who are just lazy, lack education, and are on welfare?

okie52
12/7/2011, 11:11 PM
Deport them where?

SanJoaquinSooner
12/8/2011, 02:30 AM
I didnt want to delve into it to much but you are partly correct.

IF she had filed prior to 2001 she would not have to return IF she had status to file one of the immigration petitions, like a US spouse. Thats not the case here, its why I didn't mention it, I would think that 2001 being 10 years ago that this would now be a rare find for an immigration lawyer.

What does apply to her is that she stayed in the US illegally for 1 year after her 18th birthday which automatically invokes the 10 year ban on ANY petition to immigrate. Furthermore, the fact that she entered illegally means that she would not have been able to remain in the US if she had married a US citizen and filed prior to being deported. She would have had to travel back to Mexico to get her green card. Where you are wrong is that the consulate there would have informed her that she is now banned for 10 years from entering the US unless she gets a hardship waiver approved. All of these cases deal with separation so it takes more than the same old sob story about the kids, job, spouse or sick grandma to get approval.

Its a catch 22 but its currently the law. Immigration law is a mess, about as tangled as IRS, FDA, EPA, BATF or any other government agency law. It makes no sense but a person in this country illegally cannot adjust their status (get a green card) without leaving the country to their home country, UNLESS they entered the US legally (ie overstayed on a tourist visa etc). They get told by immigration that "this is the process, dont worry you just have to return to Mexico long enough to get processed through the US consulate there, 2-3 months tops then your right back here." What they conveniently leave out is that as soon as they leave they are subject to the 10 year ban. Even if they ask specifically about the 10 year ban the immigration official is able to truthfully say "No, you haven't been banned from the US for 10 years" because they haven't....yet.

Thanks for the detailed legal perspective. Regarding application of the 245i, you may be correct that it would be rare for a U.S. spouse category, but most of the other family categories for Mexico have cutoff (priority) dates in the 1990s -- so there may be tens or hundreds of thousands here in the U.S. who live in 245i legal limbo. For example, the cutoff date for sons and daughters over 21 years of age of U.S. citizens is 1993 for Mexico. So all those who applied in that category between 1993 and 2001 are still waiting - unless they qualified another way.

I have a sister-in-law who applied in 1997. She was a minor at the time her mom and dad got green cards. But the line moved so slow that six years later she turned 21 and got kicked into an even slower moving line. The cutoff date has moved only two years in that category for the 14 years she has been in line.

The cutoff date for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens is 1996 for Mexico. So there's another class of applicants still waiting who qualify for 245i if they petitions by 2001.

The U.S. policy that really ****s you up the *** is that once you apply for an immigrant visa, they don't want to give you a tourist visa. So my sister in law has been waiting 14 years and has never been able to visit immediate family in the U.S. So much for doing things the legal way. At the present rate, she has only 28 more years to wait.

Regarding the situation of an illegal alien who marries a U.S. citizen (and not a 245i beneficiary) and the ten year ban.... I have personal knowledge of only one case - based in Dallas. The wife had to stay in Mexico about six months. They had a young child. Not sure if that was the basis of a hardship or not.

I also know personally of a case where the husband got deported while his green card holding wife and citizen son stayed here. The case took about two years, $10000 to the attorney, and while he was deported, the judge did not subject him to the ten year ban.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/8/2011, 02:45 AM
We returned to the court. Our INS guy started his summation and it becomes increasingly evident that he is arguing against granting the Green Card. The grounds were murky, but something along the lines of "well, you haven't been married long and 'we see a lot of this, believe me', I just don't believe your marriage is valid'.
Having, at this point, been married (and having registered said marriage with US authorities) for over two and a half years, I was a bit nonplussed. To the rescue, my daughter.

reminds me of what happened to my mother-in-law and young sister-in-law who were at the U.S. Consulate in Juarez to process a V-visa. This was her youngest daughter who she had when she was close to 40 years old.

One interviewer yelled, "She's not really your daughter, is she? Is she your granddaughter? If you lie, we'll take away your green card! Don't lie! She's not your daughter!"

My mother in law responded in Spanish with a saying that kinda-but-not-exactly translates as, "May God strike me dead if I'm lieing. May God strike me dead if she's not my daughter!"

So anyway, they gave her the V-visa and she came to live with Maria and me.

SicEmBaylor
12/8/2011, 02:49 AM
How about this plan?
We let all the immigrants with advanced technical degrees and inventions immigrate....
And deport an equal number of the slackers who are just lazy, lack education, and are on welfare?

How about this plan?
We put an absolute moratorium on all immigration.
We drastically increase the criminal penalties on businesses and farmers who hire illegals.
We deport (to their native countries or whoever wants them) any remaining illegals "as we find them."
We close all foreign military installations and bring every last soldier home that is abroad.
We deploy the US military to the border.
We issue "shoot to kill" orders for anyone crossing the border illegally.
We then increase the size of ICE and allow them to go after the people they should be spending their time and efforts on -- people who overstay their visas.

How about that plan?

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/8/2011, 09:51 AM
How about this plan?
We put an absolute moratorium on all immigration.
We drastically increase the criminal penalties on businesses and farmers who hire illegals.
We deport (to their native countries or whoever wants them) any remaining illegals "as we find them."
We close all foreign military installations and bring every last soldier home that is abroad.
We deploy the US military to the border.
We issue "shoot to kill" orders for anyone crossing the border illegally.
We then increase the size of ICE and allow them to go after the people they should be spending their time and efforts on -- people who overstay their visas.

How about that plan?
I've always wanted to live in a police state, sounds terrific!

NormanPride
12/8/2011, 11:22 AM
Wait, I get going after him about being isolationist, but police state? What about that is a police state?

Ton Loc
12/8/2011, 12:21 PM
How about this plan?
We put an absolute moratorium on all immigration.
We drastically increase the criminal penalties on businesses and farmers who hire illegals.
We deport (to their native countries or whoever wants them) any remaining illegals "as we find them."
We close all foreign military installations and bring every last soldier home that is abroad.
We deploy the US military to the border.
We issue "shoot to kill" orders for anyone crossing the border illegally.
We then increase the size of ICE and allow them to go after the people they should be spending their time and efforts on -- people who overstay their visas.

How about that plan?

Get ready to mow your own grass, close down 80% of restaurants, golf's gonna suck, food prices go up, peace out to hotels, etc

However, I'm with bringing home the troops.

okie52
12/8/2011, 12:33 PM
Get ready to mow your own grass, close down 80% of restaurants, golf's gonna suck, food prices go up, peace out to hotels, etc

However, I'm with bringing home the troops.

Somehow I made it through the 60's, 70's and 80's without them. Teens mowing my grass is a good thing, no problem with restaurants being run by citizens, golf has been around a long time and didn't need illegals, hotels the same thing.

Prices will go up but what...maybe 15%? I can live with that.

Dam sure for bringing the troops home and having them patrol the border.

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/8/2011, 01:47 PM
Wait, I get going after him about being isolationist, but police state? What about that is a police state?
Militarizing the border, mass deportations, shoot to kill orders, increasing the size of ICE, complete moratorium on labor movement...sounds like a police state to me. Whats your definition?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

NormanPride
12/8/2011, 02:38 PM
Militarizing the border, mass deportations, shoot to kill orders, increasing the size of ICE, complete moratorium on labor movement...sounds like a police state to me. Whats your definition?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I call that ****ing border security. A police state is when they do all that **** to civilians, not illegal aliens. The shoot to kill order is creepy, but everything else is in the realm of "We don't want undocumented people in our nation". And nobody said anything about preventing legal immigration or use of documented migrant workers.

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/8/2011, 02:39 PM
Prices will go up but what...maybe 15%? I can live with that.

So you would accept a lower quality of life if it meant all illegals were deported?

SicEmBaylor
12/8/2011, 02:56 PM
I've always wanted to live in a police state, sounds terrific!

I disagree. I'm as sensitive to the creation of a police state as anyone, but protecting our national border is one of the longest (if not the longest) functions of government and one of the few appropriate uses of Federal power.

SicEmBaylor
12/8/2011, 02:58 PM
So you would accept a lower quality of life if it meant all illegals were deported?
I absolutely would. In fact, our desire for more..more...more increases exponentially all of the time. It has caused a tremendous amount of harm to our society and the nation. It's the reason that we have an overseas empire. It's the reason that we are no longer the small and humble Republic our forefathers intended.

So, yes, if mowing our own lawns or having to pay a little more for an American to mow them represents a substantial decrease in the standard of living then I'm fine with that.

badger
12/8/2011, 03:24 PM
I disagree. I'm as sensitive to the creation of a police state as anyone, but protecting our national border is one of the longest (if not the longest) functions of government and one of the few appropriate uses of Federal power.

If only we protected our SoonerFans.com border... we wouldn't be up to three BaylorFans.com refugees.

Dale Ellis
12/8/2011, 03:25 PM
I don't think we should tear apart families, we should ship them all out together.

SicEmBaylor
12/8/2011, 03:26 PM
If only we protected our SoonerFans.com border... we wouldn't be up to three BaylorFans.com refugees.
Shoot to kill orders are the way to go. Where is Dean with his rifle when you need him? Don't forget that one of your own mods is also a refugee from the northern border proving that even an immigrant can achieve the Soonerfans dream.

Dale Ellis
12/8/2011, 03:26 PM
I absolutely would. In fact, our desire for more..more...more increases exponentially all of the time. It has caused a tremendous amount of harm to our society and the nation. It's the reason that we have an overseas empire. It's the reason that we are no longer the small and humble Republic our forefathers intended.

So, yes, if mowing our own lawns or having to pay a little more for an American to mow them represents a substantial decrease in the standard of living then I'm fine with that.

Tell me how the hell having and American mow your lawn would decrease the quatliy of your life?

badger
12/8/2011, 03:29 PM
Shoot to kill orders are the way to go. Where is Dean with his rifle when you need him? Don't forget that one of your own mods is also a refugee from the northern border proving that even an immigrant can achieve the Soonerfans dream.

You know what we called a Modador?

Employed.

You know what we call a BaylorFans.com refugee?

Unemployed illegal mooch on the system. :P

okie52
12/8/2011, 03:34 PM
So you would accept a lower quality of life if it meant all illegals were deported?

Sure, but that won't relate to lower quality of life. The taxes I save that support their ill gotten benefits will more than cover it.

okie52
12/8/2011, 03:35 PM
Tell me how the hell having and American mow your lawn would decrease the quatliy of your life?He likes to practice his Spanish with the lawn crew.

Ton Loc
12/8/2011, 03:42 PM
Sure, but that won't relate to lower quality of life. The taxes I save that support their ill gotten benefits will more than cover it.

Please let me know how much you pay in taxes and exactly how much goes to supporting illegal immigrants. I'm looking at my pay stubbs and it seems most of my money is going to pay for SS.

Also, I'll take the illegal immigrants in a trade for all our crappy American's that don't do a damn thing.

okie52
12/8/2011, 03:55 PM
Please let me know how much you pay in taxes and exactly how much goes to supporting illegal immigrants. I'm looking at my pay stubbs and it seems most of my money is going to pay for SS.

Also, I'll take the illegal immigrants in a trade for all our crappy American's that don't do a damn thing.

Well I pay property taxes and those support our schools, which in turn pay for illegal's kids attending them. Pretty sure most illegals aren't paying property taxes.

If you can get a trade for lazy Americans that don't do anything thats fine by me.

Ton Loc
12/8/2011, 04:15 PM
Well I pay property taxes and those support our schools, which in turn pay for illegal's kids attending them. Pretty sure most illegals aren't paying property taxes.

If you can get a trade for lazy Americans that don't do anything thats fine by me.

Just think how much easier it is to find the lazy Americans. We already track them so well. Just have to figure out who we can pawn them off on.

okie52
12/8/2011, 04:25 PM
Just think how much easier it is to find the lazy Americans. We already track them so well. Just have to figure out who we can pawn them off on.

That's a problem...can't find anyone to take our dregs. Maybe we could pay another country to take them. I am sure we would come out way ahead in the long run.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/9/2011, 01:59 AM
How about this plan?
We put an absolute moratorium on all immigration.
We drastically increase the criminal penalties on businesses and farmers who hire illegals.
We deport (to their native countries or whoever wants them) any remaining illegals "as we find them."
We close all foreign military installations and bring every last soldier home that is abroad.
We deploy the US military to the border.
We issue "shoot to kill" orders for anyone crossing the border illegally.
We then increase the size of ICE and allow them to go after the people they should be spending their time and efforts on -- people who overstay their visas.

How about that plan?

Well. it's difficult to get past your first principle. Do you also wish to put an absolute moratorium on foreign capital entering the United State of Mississippi?

KantoSooner
12/9/2011, 09:26 AM
Once again, this thing is gettin out of hand due to, mostly, anger (and a little race hatred, maybe some religious strife...)
Given the assinine legal immigration policies of our fine nation and the lack of any way to legally cross the border for periodic work, poor people come illegally. What an effing mystery! Frankly I'd think less of a man or woman who DIDN'T say, '**** it, my kids are hungry and there're jobs north of the border, I'm gone'.
Putting the entire TAMU corps of wannabes (oops, cadets) on the border chanting 'hup, hup, hup' to each other and getting to carry real rifles with real ammo (god, they'd all have boners so stiff they couldn't walk upright) is not going to solve this.

CUT OFF THE DAMN JOBS. DO IT BY FORCING EMPLOYERS TO CHECK ID.

And then you can have not only a reduced illegal population (you'll still have people like my best friend's sister (Aussie, 5'8" red head, green eyes, currently at age 52 a swimsuit model. Some illegals we can 'endure') who overstayed her student visa. You can also have easy cross border travel and freer trade. For those of you who get upset hearing foreign languages spoken within our borders, we could set aside a reservation on the Alabama/Mississippi border where only white anglo-saxon english speakers were allowed. We could call it 'Redneckia' and could set up viewing stands with those $0.25 for five minute binocular thingies so the rest of us see how wonderful the apartheid life is.

Dale Ellis
12/9/2011, 09:51 AM
For those of you who get upset hearing foreign languages spoken within our borders,

when I go to the grocery store or to Wal-Mart or Target and I see some Hispanic couple with several very young children and they're speaking Spanish to these kids I think "you are not doing those kids any favors by speaking Spanish and not teaching them English". I understand if you're brand new to this country, you may not have learned the language yet. But there are Mexican immigrants who've been here for years who can't speak English. That pisses me off, why the hell should I go to a restaurant and have to talk like a 4 year old so some none English speaker can understand what I'm saying?

okie52
12/9/2011, 10:00 AM
Once again, this thing is gettin out of hand due to, mostly, anger (and a little race hatred, maybe some religious strife...)
Given the assinine legal immigration policies of our fine nation and the lack of any way to legally cross the border for periodic work, poor people come illegally. What an effing mystery! Frankly I'd think less of a man or woman who DIDN'T say, '**** it, my kids are hungry and there're jobs north of the border, I'm gone'.
Putting the entire TAMU corps of wannabes (oops, cadets) on the border chanting 'hup, hup, hup' to each other and getting to carry real rifles with real ammo (god, they'd all have boners so stiff they couldn't walk upright) is not going to solve this.

CUT OFF THE DAMN JOBS. DO IT BY FORCING EMPLOYERS TO CHECK ID.

And then you can have not only a reduced illegal population (you'll still have people like my best friend's sister (Aussie, 5'8" red head, green eyes, currently at age 52 a swimsuit model. Some illegals we can 'endure') who overstayed her student visa. You can also have easy cross border travel and freer trade. For those of you who get upset hearing foreign languages spoken within our borders, we could set aside a reservation on the Alabama/Mississippi border where only white anglo-saxon english speakers were allowed. We could call it 'Redneckia' and could set up viewing stands with those $0.25 for five minute binocular thingies so the rest of us see how wonderful the apartheid life is.

Well, Kanto, a little hatred for our beloved SEC rednecks? I'll go with redneckia if you can press 2 to hear it.

The removal of jobs are very important but so are punishing sanctuary cities and border security.

KantoSooner
12/9/2011, 10:01 AM
1. Don't patronize that restaurant. The owner will get the message pretty quickly.

2. Ease up a bit, I'll trust your judgement, but maybe the waiter is new to the country and is making an effort. (not universally true, but it has to be true some of the time).

We've gotten way less tolerant in the past 25 years or so. There were communities in Kansas and Texas that spoke only German (and published newspapers in that language) into the early years of the 20th century. Krebs, OK had banks with service desks in nine separate languages into the 1920's. and on and on.

None of this caused the country to collapse.

KantoSooner
12/9/2011, 10:04 AM
Well, Kanto, a little hatred for our beloved SEC rednecks? I'll go with redneckia if you can press 2 to hear it.

The removal of jobs are very important but so are punishing sanctuary cities and border security.

Fine, I'll let whoever patrol up and down the border if that spins their beanie. That alone, however, won't do diddly to address the issue; so can we starve the illegal job market, which, BY ITSELF, will largely solve things, at the same time?

okie52
12/9/2011, 10:30 AM
Fine, I'll let whoever patrol up and down the border if that spins their beanie. That alone, however, won't do diddly to address the issue; so can we starve the illegal job market, which, BY ITSELF, will largely solve things, at the same time?


Actually real border security, alone, would virtually stop illegal immigration or put it at levels that are almost insignificant. But it wouldn't do much about the illegals already here. I agree that cutting off jobs and punishing employers will do wonders to get the ones in the states now to leave and remove any incentives for future illegals to cross the border. Most of them are here for jobs so you are right...long term no jobs for the illegals is probably the most effective weapon.

I think we have to employ all of our resources to end the problem.

Dale Ellis
12/9/2011, 11:02 AM
1. Don't patronize that restaurant. The owner will get the message pretty quickly.

I don't think expecting someone to speak English is too much, do you?


Ease up a bit, I'll trust your judgement, but maybe the waiter is new to the country and is making an effort. (not universally true, but it has to be true some of the time).


No, tell these people to make an effort to assimilate, I walk through walmart and they have the exit and entrance signs written in spanish. REALLY? How fing hard is it to learn how to read the words "Exit" and "Entrance" in English?


None of this caused the country to collapse.

Well world War II didn't cause our country to collapse either, not sure I get your point?

Dale Ellis
12/9/2011, 11:04 AM
Actually real border security, alone, would virtually stop illegal immigration or put it at levels that are almost insignificant. But it wouldn't do much about the illegals already here. I agree that cutting off jobs and punishing employers will do wonders to get the ones in the states now to leave and remove any incentives for future illegals to cross the border. Most of them are here for jobs so you are right...long term no jobs for the illegals is probably the most effective weapon.

I think we have to employ all of our resources to end the problem.

I have no problem with those who come here legally and who come here to become American citizens. Learn our language, adopt our culture and be a proud American. WHat happens is we have most of them coming here with not desire to become American citizens, all they want is a job, and free handouts from the guvmint.

They want to be Mexicans living in the US, not US citizens.

KantoSooner
12/9/2011, 11:42 AM
I don't think expecting someone to speak English is too much, do you?



No, tell these people to make an effort to assimilate, I walk through walmart and they have the exit and entrance signs written in spanish. REALLY? How fing hard is it to learn how to read the words "Exit" and "Entrance" in English?



Well world War II didn't cause our country to collapse either, not sure I get your point?

1. Depends on the timing. Sometimes I have no problem at all with immigrants who don't yet 'speaka da Engerish'. It's situational. I'll let each be the judge, but a little mercy wouldn't be misplaced.
2. Walmart has apparently made a business decision that it helps their business to have multilingual signs. Up to them. For government, I would judge differently. There I'd go with what makes sense in terms of getting the job done....without making anything other than English required.
3. My point, expressed in relatively clear English, is that we have had waves of immigration before, we've had waves of immigrants who didn't fully assimilate until the 2nd, 3rd or later generation....and it didn't hurt us as a nation. Hell, I've got friends in Texas and New Mexico, with blue eyes and Germanic surnames who've spoken Spanglish in their own homes for generations. At least one of these families has produced Texas Rangers in every generation since there was such a thing.

Multiculturalism didn't hurt us so far, no reason to believe it will going forward.

okie52
12/9/2011, 12:19 PM
1. Depends on the timing. Sometimes I have no problem at all with immigrants who don't yet 'speaka da Engerish'. It's situational. I'll let each be the judge, but a little mercy wouldn't be misplaced.
2. Walmart has apparently made a business decision that it helps their business to have multilingual signs. Up to them. For government, I would judge differently. There I'd go with what makes sense in terms of getting the job done....without making anything other than English required.
3. My point, expressed in relatively clear English, is that we have had waves of immigration before, we've had waves of immigrants who didn't fully assimilate until the 2nd, 3rd or later generation....and it didn't hurt us as a nation. Hell, I've got friends in Texas and New Mexico, with blue eyes and Germanic surnames who've spoken Spanglish in their own homes for generations. At least one of these families has produced Texas Rangers in every generation since there was such a thing.

Multiculturalism didn't hurt us so far, no reason to believe it will going forward.

Multiculturalism is great....glad we have it in this country. Pretty sure that all legal immigrants have to be able to speak english so there is no reason for press 1 for government material. Now businesses certainly recognize the advantage of bilingual materials so I don't mind their use of them

Dale Ellis
12/9/2011, 02:29 PM
Multiculturalism is great....glad we have it in this country. Pretty sure that all legal immigrants have to be able to speak english so there is no reason for press 1 for government material. Now businesses certainly recognize the advantage of bilingual materials so I don't mind their use of them

let's stay on point, we're talking about illegal immigrants who have no desire to assimilate or become citizens. They want the benefits of being a citizen with none of the responsibilities.

badger
12/9/2011, 02:45 PM
Well, Kanto, a little hatred for our beloved SEC rednecks? I'll go with redneckia if you can press 2 to hear it.

The removal of jobs are very important but so are punishing sanctuary cities and border security.

Nothing but love for SEC rednecks. Without them, Oklahoma would be ranked last in the union. With them, Mississippi is usually 50th and Louisiana is usually 49th. :D

Dale Ellis
12/9/2011, 03:35 PM
Nothing but love for SEC rednecks. Without them, Oklahoma would be ranked last in the union. With them, Mississippi is usually 50th and Louisiana is usually 49th. :D

I've always hated Wisconsin for some reason.

KantoSooner
12/9/2011, 04:00 PM
Lutefisk.

SanJoaquinSooner
12/10/2011, 03:03 AM
Multiculturalism is great....glad we have it in this country. Pretty sure that all legal immigrants have to be able to speak english so there is no reason for press 1 for government material. Now businesses certainly recognize the advantage of bilingual materials so I don't mind their use of them

There is nothing pretty about your sureness. Okie, with your on-line Ph.D. in illegal immigration from NewsMax U., you should know there is no requirement that legal immigrants are able to speak English.

Instead of birthright citizenship, maybe we should change the requirement to fluency in at least two languages. That would give them an incentive to learn English.

SicEmBaylor
12/10/2011, 03:39 AM
There is nothing pretty about your sureness. Okie, with your on-line Ph.D. in illegal immigration from NewsMax U., you should know there is no requirement that legal immigrants are able to speak English.

Instead of birthright citizenship, maybe we should change the requirement to fluency in at least two languages. That would give them an incentive to learn English.

I think he's purty.