Is U.S. immigration policy "broke"?

[27lw]

Okay, see that’s the thing. In order for citizens to do the work and stay at the job, it’s figured that the wages offered by agriculture would have to be upwards of 3 or 4 times the amount currently paid, plus benefits. And then the rest of us would have to pay much more for food, as well. I’m not saying I’m against that, I’m saying - would we be willing, in general, as a people, to pay the price at the supermarket for a wage that would attract and keep US citizens to work in the agricultural field?

We people at the supermarket would have little choice - - we would just have to pay the price, or do without. I don’t understand why it is considered a choice to leave the status quo - - where laws are being broken left and right. If there were a process in place - - say, that companies had to show by the end of a 5-year period (not overnight, as has been done unsuccessfully in the past), that all their workers have legal immigration status, then I think this would work. There is no political will to do something gradual and effective.

 

[sirach2v4]

That’s the other part of the law that’s “broke” There is no such thing as an anchor baby in Mexico.

How come no one ever seems to mention that Mexico with its endemic and typically unchallenged corruption is the problem? Why are her citizens risking and losing their lives to leave the nation of their birth - the nation they love? US law is not compassionate - it is enabling corruption and misery to flourish next door.

Well, see, that’s my point. That’s my problem with Arch. Gomez and MY Catholic Bishops. They seem to think that the ONLY problem is in the United States.

No matter what immigration reform we end up with, I think there will still be a 2500 mile fence and border patrols.That is not the reform people expected, but, notice, that is the reform that we’re getting – so far.

Getting back to what I was saying, I don’t think we should have immigration reform only in the United States without SUBSTANTIAL treaty concessions with Mexico. Sure, we don’t have immigration treaties with other countries, but Mexico is different, because it is on our border (#1) and there have been massive undocumented border crossings (#2).

What treaty concessions? I think Mexico needs to adopt and implement the U.S. bill of rights for all Mexican citizens (Mexico instead follows the Napoleonic code of justice – so warns the U.S. State Dept. to U.S. citizens visiting Mexico) and for U.S. citizens visiting Mexico. For example, now, a U.S. citizen can be arrested and jailed almost indefinitely based not on probable cause, but merely on police suspicion – AND, there is no bail, no right to a speedy trial, no right to a writ of habeas corpus, etc. CERTAINLY, because of our mutual history, Mexico has not been real friendly to US citizens in Mexico.

But, I wouldn’t want “any” immigration reform that was not part of a treaty with Mexico. Mexico itself wants freedoms and rights for its citizens in the US – sure, but, come to think of it, that’s what I want for US citizens in Mexico. Why aren’t our Bishops looking at the immigration problem from an international perspective? I guess that’s what bothers me most.

 

[sirach2v4]

I will try to keep this as short as possible. I’m an immigrant to the USA. I came here in 1999, and became a citizen in 2008. English is my first and only language.

I remain in NC. I tried to find out how to become a citizen online and then attempted to contact the ONLY immigration office in NC, which is located approx. 3 hours from my home in NC. After trying for a few weeks, several times a day, I could not get through. I drove there, and noticed a line outside the door. A guard located at the door. He told me I’d have to come back very early in the morning. The doors open at 8am. I went back the next day, arriving at 6am and got into the already huge line. They closed and locked the doors at 10am and told the rest of us to try again. I went back a few days later arriving at 3am. I barely got in the door this time and they closed/locked it. 100 people allowed in the building at any given time. I waited several more hours, and was finally called up by my number. I asked questions for the proper forms and they told me to go home and look it up on the internet. So much for getting information, as I had already done this and there was nothing offered on their site. My several hours of waiting inside the building, I noticed guards with hands on their rifles, yelling at people to sit down and yelling at mothers to “shut up their kids”. I attempted to use the one little restroom and left again as there was a drain in the center of this room and it was surrounded by urine and feces.

So off I drive home again. I decided to try the immigration office in SC (closer to my home anyway). It was empty of people and the workers there were pleased to help me, gave me all the forms needed and a checklist of items to collect and copy. I still had to use the NC office though as that is where I live.

After completing everything, I made another trip to Charlotte arriving at 2am and standing in freezing temperatures again for hours, I got in and handed the package of completed form over. They told me that one of them needs to be signed by a border person and I would have to drive to a border to have it signed. A few days later I drive from NC to Detroit, cross the border, turn around and enter the USA and discuss with the border patrol. They now refuse to let me back in the country and wouldn’t even accept my TN visa of which was my legal status in this country to begin with. Now I have to fight this from “outside” the country. My job is in this country also at this time. So I drive to another border, enter with my TN Visa and go home to NC. I go back to Charlotte again and explain regarding the wasted trip they sent me on and they apologize saying someone gave me very bad information.

After 2 years of this I finally became a citizen in 2008, and things have now changed in Charlotte. I wrote letters to the editors of new papers, congressmen, senators and anyone that was willing to listen. I told them my whole story, and actually I thought I was one of the lucky ones as I could speak english. I simply couldn’t imagine doing this in another language.

So is the system broke? You bet!

Sorry, with all due respect AND CHARITY, I disagree, but let’s talk. What I see here is that the wave of immigration into the U.S. is very large. If that office had three times the capacity, it probably would still be inadequate. (By the way, our Governor in Michigan says that Michigan NEEDS immigrants, so you might have been better off and better served in Michigan.)

Can you understand, that life-long citizens of the U.S. are afraid of the massive wave of immigration – yes – from Mexico? The U.S. is the third most highly populated country IN THE WORLD (am I wrong?). In 1960, the population was 160 M, now it’s over 325 M and shooting up towards the half-billion mark.

Historically, immigration to the U.S. was welcomed to obtain workers and fill up the country. Isn’t there a practical limit, as this person’s comment suggests, to how many people come to the U.S.? Several years ago, on CBS’s 60 Minutes program, they pointed out that all 7 billion people in the world could theoretically come to the U.S., seeking political asylum, if nothing else. (And, they’d all fit in Texas – somebody said, too.)

Not to be personal or offensive, aren’t there any valid arguments AGAINST unrestricted immigration to the U.S.? Why don’t people stay in their own countries and fix their own problems? I don’t think I’m being totally naive about this.

 

[sirach2v4]

In an article dated five weeks ago, Archbishop Gomez identifies two issues which make the current immigration system broken. (There are more problems, but the article addresses two issues.) One of those two issues is the unjust treatment of children, brought illegally to the US as infants or small children. These children grow up in the US, and are identical to citizens in all ways, other than their immigration status. Why should those children be punished (denied education and employment) for the crimes of their parents?
angelusnews.com/voices/archbishop-gomez/what-can-we-do-now-on-immigration-reform/

Why shouldn’t they follow the immigration laws of the land? Immigration, itself, is not illegal, but it’s a controlled process. As I see it, the problem that Arch. Gomez sees is the control – he and the U.S. bishops don’t want any controls. They DO state that the immigration has to be legal, not illegal.

Thank you. This is the article where I read that Arch. Gomez says that the U.S. immigration system is broken. That’s why I started this thread, because I didn’t know what he was talking about. THIS article doesn’t explain it (does it?) , but thanks, anyway.

 

[sirach2v4]

It is broke because after 3 appeals no criminal record and being brought into the US as a minor my husband was still given a voluntary deport in 2011, we were married in the US with his passport but all because his mom decided to bring him here as a kid and because she put him to work at a young age he is condemned to mexico me and our 4 children along with him. I have spent so much on different lawyers trying to get his 10 year bar lifted my last lawyer told me that if you are from mexico or guatamala or honduras or el salvador and you didn’t file before 2010 forget ever getting legal unless serious reforms happen. Immigration discriminates against families a childless couples affadavit of support is only 19885 of yearly wages a family with children is 49985 I earn 26000 so we’re out I can forget him coming back even after his 10 year bar is up. Immigrants do the jobs americans are “too good for” they pick your produce, they clean your homes are nannies to your children, they tend your lawns, all for less than minimum wage the majority are tax payers. The bible itself warns america
Leviticus 19:33-34
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
Malachi 3:5
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts

Remember this land was built on the backs of immigrants and slaves our country’s track record is not good in the eyes of the Lord we degrade the immigrants, we rob them of a fair days pay we trade with godless china shutting down jobs for our own citizens, we kill the unborn, we allow sin to flourish in our streets, we send our best and brightest men and women to die for political greed making widows and orphans America should have great fear and trembling of the Lord they should end this futile war and bring our troops home they should abolish abortion they should reform immigration bring work home for americas skilled workers and tradesmen.

This post is too overwhelming. I cannot see clearly what the issue is, that Arch. Gomez and the U.S. and Mexican bishops are referring to.

The bishops DO SAY that people who are impoverished should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. but they qualify that by saying that that immigration should be according to law.

The only problem that this suggests is that previously, there was virtually an open border between the U.S. and Mexico. It was easy to break the laws and come here illegally.

You say “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong." Well, a lot of U.S. citizens are imprisoned in Mexico for long times. Mexico does not have a Bill of Rights like the U.S., with a right to a speedy trial, the presumption of innocence, the right to an attorney, decent conditions in jail, etc. This verse swings both ways with Mexico, too.

It’s probably difficult not to get emotionally involved in this subject, but I asked from the beginning what Arch. Gomez’s justification was, for saying that US immigration is “broken.” I asked to restrict the comments in this thread to the issue.

 

[Canuck000]

Sorry, with all due respect AND CHARITY, I disagree, but let’s talk. What I see here is that the wave of immigration into the U.S. is very large. If that office had three times the capacity, it probably would still be inadequate. (By the way, our Governor in Michigan says that Michigan NEEDS immigrants, so you might have been better off and better served in Michigan.)

Can you understand, that life-long citizens of the U.S. are afraid of the massive wave of immigration – yes – from Mexico? The U.S. is the third most highly populated country IN THE WORLD (am I wrong?). In 1960, the population was 160 M, now it’s over 325 M and shooting up towards the half-billion mark.

Historically, immigration to the U.S. was welcomed to obtain workers and fill up the country. Isn’t there a practical limit, as this person’s comment suggests, to how many people come to the U.S.? Several years ago, on CBS’s 60 Minutes program, they pointed out that all 7 billion people in the world could theoretically come to the U.S., seeking political asylum, if nothing else. (And, they’d all fit in Texas – somebody said, too.)

Not to be personal or offensive, aren’t there any valid arguments AGAINST unrestricted immigration to the U.S.? Why don’t people stay in their own countries and fix their own problems? I don’t think I’m being totally naive about this.

Whoa! You missed the point that I came to your country on a TN VISA. This is a Visa for professionals needed in your country. Are you suggesting I should have went to an area of need? I am a registered nurse with a masters level. Your country was in a severe nursing shortage (and still is). I could have went to ANY state and found a need.

My husband is American. After living in Canada, he retired and we decided to come the USA. I take much offense at you telling me to stay in my own country and fix my own problems.

By the way, are you aware that Canada has statistically had a larger flow of immigrants to the Canada than any other country in the world. I’ve witnessed the immigration into Canada first hand also, as my husband was immigrating there from the USA many years before I immigrated to the USA from Canada.
God Bless

 

[27lw]

Whoa Canuck - - I don’t think that post was meant for you, or for all those rogue Canadians…

 

[Canuck000]

Whoa Canuck - - I don’t think that post was meant for you, or for all those rogue Canadians…

Ummm. Yes my original post was quoted and replied.

 

[Captain_America]

That’s the other part of the law that’s “broke” There is no such thing as an anchor baby in Mexico.

How come no one ever seems to mention that Mexico with its endemic and typically unchallenged corruption is the problem? Why are her citizens risking and losing their lives to leave the nation of their birth - the nation they love? US law is not compassionate - it is enabling corruption and misery to flourish next door.

The “anchor baby” is a manufactured problem! If they wanted to keep the family together, stay home: obviously, obviously, obviously a stunt taking advantage of the US Constitution’s citizenship definition.

EVERY NATION has the right to establish requirements for citizenship. A good friend of mine has lived in Switzerland for more than ten years. . . he’s not bellyaching about being excluded: the Swiss have their laws, and he obeys them.

Why are we so racist that we believe Mexican illegals are not intelligent enough to understand this? Why the Patient Handholding of the Big White Northern Brother?

The fellow above makes the excellent point. The US is an enabler of bad and unjust conditions in Mexico by serving as the “pressure relief valve,” for the negatives of bad policy.

Several years back a book of photos showing the magnificent wealth of the Top Tier Wealthy Mexicans was published. . . and set off a national alarm top to bottom: there IS wealth in Mexico: it’s just not being dispersed down to the average folks.

Uncle Sam should us international policies to try to encourage democratization of Mexican wealth. . . and thus solve everybody’s problems. … instead of these stopgaps, palliatives and handouts.

 

[PrayHarder]

One of the “broke” aspects in the eyes of the Church would be how current US immigration policy and law results in some families being split up due to a parent or both parents not being citizens but one or more children are.

Seems like there are two possible solutions to that problem:

1. 
   *]Allow the whole family to stay in the US and/or give them a pathway to citizenship.
   *]Remove the anchor baby policy and send the whole family back to their native country.
   
   Both of those result in the family staying together which is a stated outcome to a “fixed” immigration policy. If we ever want a serious discussion about keeping families together then we need both options on the table. If we aren’t going to consider all the possible solutions to the desired outcome, then we shouldn’t be disingenuous and use “keeping families together” as the desired outcome to fixing US immigration policy.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Seems like there are two possible solutions to that problem:

1. 
   *]Allow the whole family to stay in the US and/or give them a pathway to citizenship.
   *]Remove the anchor baby policy and send the whole family back to their native country.
   
   Both of those result in the family staying together which is a stated outcome to a “fixed” immigration policy. If we ever want a serious discussion about keeping families together then we need both options on the table. If we aren’t going to consider all the possible solutions to the desired outcome, then we shouldn’t be disingenuous and use “keeping families together” as the desired outcome to fixing US immigration policy.

1. 
   Anchor baby policy? Oh, you mean the Constitution and its various amendments. Yeah, automatic citizenship upon birth is such a horrible idea.

 

[Coatimundi]

Why shouldn’t they follow the immigration laws of the land? Immigration, itself, is not illegal, but it’s a controlled process. As I see it, the problem that Arch. Gomez sees is the control – he and the U.S. bishops don’t want any controls. They DO state that the immigration has to be legal, not illegal.

Thank you. This is the article where I read that Arch. Gomez says that the U.S. immigration system is broken. That’s why I started this thread, because I didn’t know what he was talking about. THIS article doesn’t explain it (does it?) , but thanks, anyway.

I think the article mentions two reasons that the immigration system is broken. There are more reasons, I do not doubt.

I am not sure why you think Archbishop Gomez doesn’t want any immigration controls. He is saying that the current laws are not working well, and they need to be overhauled.

 

[TRH1292]

Anchor baby policy? Oh, you mean the Constitution and its various amendments. Yeah, automatic citizenship upon birth is such a horrible idea.

 

[PrayHarder]

Anchor baby policy? Oh, you mean the Constitution and its various amendments. Yeah, automatic citizenship upon birth is such a horrible idea.

Let’s look at the logic for a second. One of the big problems with our immigration policy that everyone keeps citing is that it breaks up families because half the family is here legally and the other half is here illegally. So we only have a few options if we want to keep the families together – let them all stay or deport all of them. I’m not advocating any one side, but those are the options.

By making a snarky comment and rolling your eyes, you basically prove the point I was trying to make. We can’t have a genuine discussion about immigration policy nor can people say that their main goal is to keep families together if there is only one option that will be considered. Because then we’re not discussing how to keep families together, we are discussing whether to implement some system of amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. Then the “keeping families together” argument becomes something to appeal to people’s passions, but isn’t the actual goal of immigration reform.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Let’s look at the logic for a second. One of the big problems with our immigration policy that everyone keeps citing is that it breaks up families because half the family is here legally and the other half is here illegally. So we only have a few options if we want to keep the families together – let them all stay or deport all of them. I’m not advocating any one side, but those are the options.

By making a snarky comment and rolling your eyes, you basically prove the point I was trying to make. We can’t have a genuine discussion about immigration policy nor can people say that their main goal is to keep families together if there is only one option that will be considered. Because then we’re not discussing how to keep families together, we are discussing whether to implement some system of amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. Then the “keeping families together” argument becomes something to appeal to people’s passions, but isn’t the actual goal of immigration reform.

Non-snarky comment- Well let’s ignore the horrible idea that we need to completely throw out our legal history and dramatically alter our founding documents in order to “fix” a rather minor issue in our immigration policy. Let’s instead focus on how those who support the idea that we need to get rid of the “anchor baby policy” (aka citizenship at birth) pretty much don’t give a flying about the child or equality under law. That’s what I’d assume of them since they seem to have no issue denying an innocent person a Right due to the illegal actions of someone else. That’s what the whole “do away with the anchor baby policy” boils down to. The child, who has done nothing wrong (both legally and morally) is being punished for the actions of their parents.

Would you care for me to continue on to your idea that deporting US citizens (your deport them all comment) who are guilty of nothing is also a horrible idea?

As for a genuine look at the immigration issue, a genuine look would not result in the idea of getting rid of the “anchor baby policy” or deporting US citizens guilty of nothing as viable options. Not only are they morally wrong, both violate our legal codes and legal history, not to mention founding spirit of America. But, a genuine discussion would force both sides to recognize that what we are talking about is a minor citizen with non-citizen parents instead of trying to turn this minor into a thing (anchor baby).

Non-snarky enough for you? I can continue into how a genuine discussion and logic would result in some form of amnesty being given for the minor citizen’s non-citizen parents for the betterment of the child’s welfare with the 2nd and 3rd order after effects being a better and more productive citizen.

 

[powerofk]

Let’s look at the logic for a second. One of the big problems with our immigration policy that everyone keeps citing is that it breaks up families because half the family is here legally and the other half is here illegally. So we only have a few options if we want to keep the families together – let them all stay or deport all of them. I’m not advocating any one side, but those are the options.

By making a snarky comment and rolling your eyes, you basically prove the point I was trying to make. We can’t have a genuine discussion about immigration policy nor can people say that their main goal is to keep families together if there is only one option that will be considered. Because then we’re not discussing how to keep families together, we are discussing whether to implement some system of amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. Then the “keeping families together” argument becomes something to appeal to people’s passions, but isn’t the actual goal of immigration reform.

Honestly, as part of immigration reform, we need to make legal immigration easier. Cracking down security on illegal immigration will be of no use if legal immigration methods remain extremely difficult. We need to focus our energies on employers that knowingly employ undocumented immigrants or knowingly look the other way. Again, if undocumented immigrants are able to gain employment easily, they’ll continue to take the risk of coming over illegally. We also need to work with Mexico to make their system fairer for the masses in Mexico - so they won’t feel the need to leave. We also need to acknowledge the human problem - the fact that there are many people who were brought over as young children and therefore are American in every sense but papers - many of whom don’t even remember their home country, and many of whom don’t even realize that they weren’t born here until they try to apply to college, work, or the military. Such people should not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.

As for the argument of “anchor babies” - the only way that can be changed is through a Constitutional Amendment. And, it would be a pretty dangerous amendment at that, because if we were to eliminate the provision in the 14th amendment that gives automatic citizenship to anyone born in the US, whether any of us are citizens or not would be at the whims of Congress.

BTW, the options aren’t “let them all stay” or “deport them all”. There’s a middle option here that many on the Right refuse to acknowledge - it’s “treat with dignity and investigate each case on a case by case basis”. Are the people in school or gainfully employed? Are they abusing the welfare system? Are they willing to at least try to learn English and/or obtain a GED if they don’t have a high school diploma? Are they attempting to pay taxes? And etc., etc., etc. In other words, are they showing that they are trying to really improve their lives, are they seeing the US and state governments as a never-ending supply of free money, or are they involved in criminal activity? There are plenty of people in all three groups.

Honestly, though, the main reason why we need to fix the immigration system is because undocumented immigrants are subject to extreme human rights abuses. Most women and children who are sex trafficked are undocumented immigrants. Underground workshops (“sweatshops”) in the US are often staffed by undocumented immigrants. And don’t forget undocumented immigrants being stuffed away in a smuggler’s truck in the intense Arizona heat and dying from heat stroke.

 

[PrayHarder]

Non-snarky comment- Well let’s ignore the horrible idea that we need to completely throw out our legal history and dramatically alter our founding documents in order to “fix” a rather minor issue in our immigration policy. Let’s instead focus on how those who support the idea that we need to get rid of the “anchor baby policy” (aka citizenship at birth) pretty much don’t give a flying about the child or equality under law. That’s what I’d assume of them since they seem to have no issue denying an innocent person a Right due to the illegal actions of someone else. That’s what the whole “do away with the anchor baby policy” boils down to. The child, who has done nothing wrong (both legally and morally) is being punished for the actions of their parents.

Would you care for me to continue on to your idea that deporting US citizens (your deport them all comment) who are guilty of nothing is also a horrible idea?

As for a genuine look at the immigration issue, a genuine look would not result in the idea of getting rid of the “anchor baby policy” or deporting US citizens guilty of nothing as viable options. Not only are they morally wrong, both violate our legal codes and legal history, not to mention founding spirit of America. But, a genuine discussion would force both sides to recognize that what we are talking about is a minor citizen with non-citizen parents instead of trying to turn this minor into a thing (anchor baby).

Non-snarky enough for you? I can continue into how a genuine discussion and logic would result in some form of amnesty being given for the minor citizen’s non-citizen parents for the betterment of the child’s welfare with the 2nd and 3rd order after effects being a better and more productive citizen.

Perfect. That is what was missing in your original reply. Thanks for providing something a little more substantive than essentially saying “it’s the law” and rolling your eyes. Your last post is the type of dialogue which I was saying is missing from our public discourse – actually looking at the options and saying why something is a good or bad idea.

You may not know it from our little exchange oldcatholicguy, but we’re actually on the same page about many of the points you raised regarding this topic. My beef is more about how our policy makers make policy – with soundbites that cater to passions.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

U.S. immigration policy IS NOT broke.

It is simply NOT ENFORCED.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

My beef is more about how our policy makers make policy – with soundbites that cater to passions.

I wouldn’t have concluded that given the lack of depth in the original comment of yours that I commented on. If you expect in-depth responses to your comments, make sure your comments warrant such responses.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

U.S. immigration policy IS NOT broke.

It is simply NOT ENFORCED.

If non-enforcement has reached the point that it is a national level issue than clearly the system is broken somewhere.