Is U.S. immigration policy "broke"?

[Erich]

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

Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship, as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas.

If I, as a U.S. citizen, were to travel to a foreign country, that would not automatically make me “subject to the jurisdiction” of that country (though, of course, I would not be exempt from obeying their laws while there). Since when is a foreign national who happens to be 9 months pregnant when she sets foot on U.S. soil “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.? If she were here legally and (say) some legal issue were to arise, she would quite naturally go to the embassy/consulate of her home country to sort it all out – because she is “subject to the jurisdiction” of her home country, of course. It should be no different for her child who happens to be born here.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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

No, not broken…

All it will take is robust, fair and just enforcement of existing law and control of our borders. When this begins, immigration problems will cease to exist in a very short time.

 

[Thinking10]

The argument that deportation breaks up families is an argument which appeals to emotions, not a logical explanation of why our immigration laws are wrong. Should all felons be exempt from being sent to prison so families aren’t broken up?

 

[PrayHarder]

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.

The problem I have with a “case by case” basis approach is how ambiguous it can be. It could lead to very arbitrary decisions where two people in the US illegally might be in very similar situations but one is deported while the other stays based on the opinion of whoever is making that determination. I think such a policy might be subject to too many outside factors like whether whoever is making these decisions is up for re-election or wants to score points with a certain voting block, or is feeling the heat from certain special interest groups.

The “case by case” approach would have to be very clearly laid out in law as to what criteria someone in the US illegally must meet. Otherwise it would turn into what many of our other laws have become – something that is selectively enforced or ignored depending on the social and political climate.

 

[PrayHarder]

The argument that deportation breaks up families is an argument which appeals to emotions, not a logical explanation of why our immigration laws are wrong. Should all felons be exempt from being sent to prison so families aren’t broken up?

You more concisely stated what I was trying to say in a more rambling way earlier. The “breaking up family” argument reminds me of the “we’re a nation of immigrants” line that appeals to emotions but doesn’t actually explain or address the brokenness of the US immigration system. I do think that the family issue should be addressed in any immigration debate and resulting policy, but it can’t be done in a way where any discussion short of full amnesty is immediately maligned and dismissed.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship, as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas.

If I, as a U.S. citizen, were to travel to a foreign country, that would not automatically make me “subject to the jurisdiction” of that country (though, of course, I would not be exempt from obeying their laws while there). Since when is a foreign national who happens to be 9 months pregnant when she sets foot on U.S. soil “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.? If she were here legally and (say) some legal issue were to arise, she would quite naturally go to the embassy/consulate of her home country to sort it all out – because she is “subject to the jurisdiction” of her home country, of course. It should be no different for her child who happens to be born here.

Your entire argument hinges on foreign citizens not being subject to the jurisdiction of our laws (both punitive and protective) while in the US or a US controlled territory. This contention is actually the rare exception (diplomatic immunity) to the rule (foreigners are subject to the laws of the US while in the US or a US controlled territory). While I lived in Texas there was a case of a Mexican national who murdered people. I don’t remember too many people arguing that it was illegal for the Texas government to put this person on trial, convict him of said murders, and imprison him because he wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction.

Then there is the issue of trying to link the child’s rights under the law, protections under the law, and innocence or guilt of breaking a law to the status of the mother. A position that is usually held by individuals who do not view the child as an actual, separate person until after he or she is born. If you wish to argue that the child should not be qualified for citizenship as dictated by law, you need to show how the child fails to be qualified, not why the mother fails to be qualified.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The argument that deportation breaks up families is an argument which appeals to emotions, not a logical explanation of why our immigration laws are wrong. Should all felons be exempt from being sent to prison so families aren’t broken up?

Are all illegal immigrants felons? I guess logic dictates unequal comparisons based on emotions (public feeling about felons and the need for punishment of them and protection of society from them).

 

[Jim_Baur]

Please forgive my opinion: The Government wants the situation just the way it is.

Why? I do not know.

I believe that that is what the U. S. Government wants. If not, they would change it

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No, not broken…

All it will take is robust, fair and just enforcement of existing law and control of our borders. When this begins, immigration problems will cease to exist in a very short time.

Yeah, the same way robust, fair and just enforcement of existing laws against murder, prostitution, speeding, theft, illegal gambling, human trafficking, drug use etc have reduced said crime rates to zero. Oh wait…

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Please forgive my opinion: The Government wants the situation just the way it is.

Why? I do not know.

I believe that that is what the U. S. Government wants. If not, they would change it

The government as an institution- no. The government as in the two political parties, our elected officials, and portions of the governmental employees- yes. I’d wager the inactivity toward the status quo is due to political advantage and job security. Both sides of the issue can argue they are “doing something,” point the finger at the other side as the “bad guys” and really not have to take any real action.

 

[Jim_Baur]

oldcatholicguy:

Obviously I do not know.

There are about 16,000 murders per year. (Nam is beaten in four years)

Each American owe about 50,000 for our $16,000,000,000,000.00.

Tons upon tons of illegal drugs come into this country.

We have had thirty million or more surgical abortions.

I believe that the two parts work well together.

If the two party systems care to stop any of these it could have do so a long time ago.

 

[Thinking10]

My position on this issue:

American citizenship is a privilege, not a right. People in other nations already have a nation to live in and govern and can improve their own nation if they aren’t satisfied with it.

There is a saying that “We are a nation of immigrants” but immigration was much more restricted than it is now for much of America’s history. Immigration laws changed in 1965 to be much more liberal.

As a nation, the United States must put its own interests first. The US should restrict immigration to those people who can support themselves.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.”

cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

 

[Thinking10]

Are all** illegal** immigrants felons? I guess logic dictates unequal comparisons based on emotions (public feeling about felons and the need for punishment of them and protection of society from them).

You answered your own question. They are in this country Illegally

 

[Erich]

If you wish to argue that the child should not be qualified for citizenship as dictated by law, you need to show how the child fails to be qualified, not why the mother fails to be qualified.

From this link:

Age

Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
**
Residence and Physical Presence**

An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:

• has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
• has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with absences from the United States totaling no more than one year; If receiving the permanent resident card through marriage then there is a 3 years residence requirement.
• has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year break the continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period);
• has resided within a state or district for at least three months

The child is not qualified for citizenship as dictated by law. (For that matter, anyone who is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States is also not qualified for citizenship as dictated by law. Someone who was himself (or herself) smuggled into the United States is, by definition, “involved in” such smuggling.)

 

[powerofk]

You answered your own question. They are in this country Illegally

There’s one problem with that - in the US, crossing the border illegally is considered a misdemeanor, not a felony. The punishment for being caught in violation of immigration policy, though, is deportation and not being allowed to apply to enter the country legally for 10 years.

 

[Cojuanco]

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.

Actually, strictly speaking, a deportation does not make one a criminal. It is an administrative penalty, akin to being cited by OSHA. Resisting the conclusions of a removal proceeding is illegal, yes. But first they have to actually decide to deport you.

Furthermore, the problem is that it makes it interminably hard to immigrate into this country legally - they still have quotas for countries like Mexico or the Philippines. You can move to the front of the line, sure, but usually that requires you have the sort of opportunities which, if you had them, you would be less likely to want to immigrate in the first place.

Furthermore, given the CIS’ association with FAIR, whose leadership wants to get rid of poor people from this country either through deportation or abortion, forgive me if I take their contentions with a grain of salt. Even if the contention that they use welfare more than native-borns is true, it may perhaps be due to the fact that they tend to have more children than the native-born (and thus more eligible for welfare programs). While our supposedly enlightened politicians want to “educate” them in the many ways they can commit infanticide, there are to some extent not as barbarized as we are in that regard.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You answered your own question. They are in this country Illegally

Actually I didn’t answer the question at all given that not all crimes are felonies and not all criminals are felons. Also, mind explaining how an unborn child or one just born can be guilty of any crime?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

From this link:

Age

Applicants must be at least 18 years old.
**
Residence and Physical Presence**

An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:

• has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
• has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with absences from the United States totaling no more than one year; If receiving the permanent resident card through marriage then there is a 3 years residence requirement.
• has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year break the continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period);
• has resided within a state or district for at least three months

The child is not qualified for citizenship as dictated by law. (For that matter, anyone who is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States is also not qualified for citizenship as dictated by law. Someone who was himself (or herself) smuggled into the United States is, by definition, “involved in” such smuggling.)

-A child born on US territory is a citizen by the fact he or she was born on US territory. See the Constitution, its amendments, and case law regarding this. You’re trying to apply something aimed at non-citizens seeking citizenship to people who are already US citizens. It doesn’t work like that.
-“Someone who has himself smuggled into the US…” Sure, if you really believe that an unborn child or a minor child is completely free to decide if they want to be smuggled into the US or not. The parent’s are guilty of smuggling, not the children. Or do you reject legal and Church thought that children are to held to a separate standard given their mental immaturity and usual lack of independence in action?

 

[27lw]

Actually I didn’t answer the question at all given that not all crimes are felonies and not all criminals are felons. Also, mind explaining how an unborn child or one just born can be guilty of any crime?

I think this has gotten away from the original analogy:

If a parent is in prison, that breaks up the family. Does that mean we shouldn’t imprison people who have children - - because it would break up the family?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think this has gotten away from the original analogy:

If a parent is in prison, that breaks up the family. Does that mean we shouldn’t imprison people who have children - - because it would break up the family?

If you wish to go back to the original analogy, then you need to actually use the original analogy. Illegal immigrants = felons and letting illegal immigrants stay in the US due to a minor child who is a citizen = letting a felon out of prison due to a minor child. That’s the original analogy.

But, let’s go with your modified one. Now we are dealing with illegal immigrants = people who are imprisoned versus people who are simply let off with a warning, fined, given non-prison punishments, given time served, or put on probation. Mind explaining how you came to the conclusion that being in this country illegally = an offense that merits prison versus one of the punishments I listed above; especially since our immigration policy doesn’t actually support the view that being here illegally is in itself an offense that merits prison.