I'm in the same boat. It's been difficult. I cannot express how grateful I am to Jose Vargas for writing this story.
I was brought here as a kid 13 years ago. I'm 24 now. I also graduated from a "top" university -- like that matters. I guess my parents weren't smart enough to get a fake social security card for me back then, I wish they were. I've also been fighting for the Dream Act for what feels like an eternity. I made a site and still maintain it, have met with Senators, protested in front of the White House, several times, other things. I'm loosing hope. I lost hope in Congress long ago. I lost hope in this President in December, when he failed to stand by us and the vote. I don't have anything left to wait for.
I'm still "hiding," most of my friends have no idea, but I see less and less reason to do so every day. I just can't take it anymore. I'm worth _something_. I'm competent coder, and fuck it all, at least I got that, my mind, and my family.
Anybody who wants to debate the pros and cons of immigration reform can go to hell. I'm done reading the hate mail. I'm done debating. I am done listening to those masked bigots. I know what it is like to live like this having done nothing wrong. I know that I don't deserve the punishment. If we can't agree on the fact that I am American and should have basic rights, then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not asking for anything except recognition.
Btw, people who were brought here on fake documents, as me and Jose, can't get married for papers. So even if Jose wasn't gay, he wouldn't be able to adjust based on marriage. It's unfortunate that people who come here on student visas get married -- assuming they have enough money -- and have a green card in six months. People like me and Jose, homebred Americans if ya will, are forever tarnished with this inherited title. Hello, my name is "illegal immigrant." That's what I feel like every single day. Every morning in the shower, I utter the words "I am so fucking tired." And I am.
Trust me, there's nobody on this board that is more sympathetic than I am. I am 110% behind you with the DREAM act, and my money has gone to Immigration Equality which has lobbied for this issue. (For different reasons, but suffice to say I'm an ally.)
There's one simple problem with changing immigration, and that's the system is working as intended. Farm workers can't unionize nearly as easily if they are undocumented, and undocumented workers don't have to be paid standard wages. In fact, they can explicitly be paid substandard wages and there is no way to complain. Your parents, most likely.
Undocumented workers lower unskilled work wages and working conditions far past what a documented system would. Further, as workers age out of the ability to do backbreaking farm work, they have no legal protections on which to rely, and can be thrown back out more easily. The DREAM act, however, brings people into the system with legal protections, people who can't easily be exploited in the same way their parents are. Your parents, that is.
And that's why we face an uphill battle with the DREAM act. It sounds conspiratorial, and nobody would explicitly admit this; sometimes, we get to status quo through unintended consequences, but people build their businesses on unintended consequences, and change isn't something they take easily, especially when it impacts their bottom line.
Georgia's tough anti-illegal-immigrant law drove a sizable fraction of the migrant labor pool out of the state, and as a result, "millions of dollars' worth of blueberries, onions, melons and other crops [are] unharvested and rotting in the fields."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/georgias...
Surely there would be some way to legalize low cost unskilled workers at the expense of giving them some basic rights.
For me, those documents are but papers that marks the existence of a certain person in the political angle. It seems like papers are more valuable than life. Jose and you deserved recognition by papers. Hopefully, many people like you would support the Dream Act.
After 4 years (3 years + 1 year of waiting for the citizenship test, passport generation, etc) you can come back and work in the US under TN at the border. You can also travel to the USA by applying for a 5-10 year B visa and visit as you wish once you've had your your permanent residence card for a while. This all contingent if you haven't had any issues with us immigration. Singapore is also an option.
I don't know, there might be a way to do it still for Canada. For example cooks and chefs can get a PR card o_o, it would be good for your health to take up a 1 year cooking sabbatical or something (geek out about diet and such). Australia accepts computer professionals on arrival also under the software engineer category (60 points, pretty good!) with a skills test. Australians also have a TN like arrangement with the us, but it's a dual intent visa (E-3) so it's even easier to get the green card. The waiting period although is 6 years (5 years + 1 year citizenship test & passport generation). Singapore is also extremely quick if he has the gumption to start a consulting business there, or get employment, it's possible to get PR in 6 months and singapore also has a special TN type H1B. Singapore although is a 1 passport citizenship, it's major downfall. Mexico also has the TN arrangement along with Canada as a part of NAFTA and Chile also has a TN like arrangement also. The somewhat open secret with these TN visas is that even if they are not dual intent, if your willing to stay in the country until green card and renew inside until you have it you can still successfully for permanent residence. You can also apply directly outside of the USA for permanent residence under the EB-* visas. You'll be waiting years and have to have a really really nice employer/friends who's willing to wait that long. There are also the dual intent L-1A, L-1B visas. There are options for immigrating to the USA, even if it might take 20 years in the end...
The story was a moving one and I hope Vargas gets to stay.
With that said, I think illegal immigration creates all kinds of societal problems and is unfair to legal immigrants.
The problem it creates is that there's enormous stress on those that are illegal. They live in the shadows and can be taken advantage of. My own personal experience was driving in LA and being rear-ended by someone who then fled the scene (most likely illegal). They work for less than minimum wage and don't cooperate with law enforcement for fear of deportation.
I'm a child of legal immigrants so I'm naturally biased. There is a legal system and many people every year try to go through that system like my parents did. I see illegal immigrants as "cutting in line" and I see nothing fair about it.
But I'm also human. People like Vargas had no choice (sent here as a kid) and has made a life here. I also sympathize those that flee poverty, crime and even wanting a brighter future. I also grew up in LA and know that many illegal immigrants live decent lives.. heck some of my friends are probably undocumented.
But completely opening the borders is not feasible. Creating systems that encourage illegal immigration only make the problem worse (and exacerbate the problems mentioned above).
There is a legal system and many people every year try
to go through that system like my parents did. I see
illegal immigrants as "cutting in line" and I see
nothing fair about it.
The problem is that if you are not a student there is basically no way to legally immigrate except:
1. Marrying an american
2. Indentured servitude via H1-B (hard to get, and if you leave your job/get fired you have to find a new job in two weeks or leave)
If you think the privilege of an H1B is "indentured servitude", it seems that immigration is not for you. I don't expect to enter a foreign country and immediately have all the same worker rights as a citizen of that country.
If you think the privilege of an H1B is
"indentured servitude", it seems that
immigration is not for you.
Funny that you say that, I have been an immigrant for almost 7 years now in the European Union (where it's significantly easier than in the US).
I am educated, healthy, young, have no criminal record and as a programmer I earn a significantly higher than average salary (and therefor pay significantly higher than average taxes).
I can say with a straight face that probably any country I choose to live in will benefit from me being there, so why would you want to keep skilled people like me out?
Do they? Just the other day I met an entrepreneur who was not American (either Canadian or European) who's able to work here on a "extraordinary ability" visa. He wasn't under an H1B and he's starting his own company.
My original point is that H1B is not a right, it's a privilege. Even though you're awesome (by your own account), I fail to see why you're owed anything.
I'm not owed anything, I'm arguing that it's in the country's interest to attract skilled labor (which many other western countries like Australia, Canada & New Zealand do with their vastly easier immigration policies).
Well 1) that is the rule of law. It's not just the case for the US but many other modern nations in this world.
2) Being a citizen doesn't just have benefits but also responsibilities. This is why we pledge allegiance.
At age 21 I had to register for the civil service. That means that if my country goes to war and I'm drafted then I must fight and possibly die for my country.
An illegal immigrant will not be drafted.
It also means other things I'm bound under federal law like paying taxes. There are also other civil duties like being on a jury to judge my fellow citizens. As a citizen, I'm bound by the laws on our constitution and those created by our legislature.
3) The privileges of a citizen allow them to contribute to the way our democracy functions including the right to vote.
An illegal immigrant cannot vote.
The rest of my argument was already stated above to you. If we completely open the borders to everyone, then our government wouldn't even be able to serve the current legal citizens.
You may dislike the system but in other countries such as Japan and Germany it is even more difficult and exclusionary. They are based on parentage and while that make more sense to you, it actually ends up leaving large classes of immigrants unnaturalized.
1) So basically your explanation goes like that:
"Discrimination against immigrants is justified, because it's a law and other countries discriminate even worse than the US".
I hoped for somewhat better reasoning than that.
If you take "it's a law and it must stay unchanged" principle to the heart, then you would be dead by now killed as invader by one of American-Indian tribes.
2) "Opening borders to everyone" has very little to do with "Stopping discrimination against immigrants".
It's two-fold. On one hand, it's the law. On the other hand, I consider it a fair law. Pointing to other countries was simply to show that the US isn't alone in this thinking.
It has everything to do with opening the borders because if illegal immigrants have all the same rights as citizens then you're essentially inviting every immigrant to come to the US.
Of anyone, I would think you understand that our physical borders does not do a great job of preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country.
You seem to pick and choose your literal arguments from your theoretical ones.
> That means that if my country goes to war and I'm drafted then I must fight and possibly die for my country.
Societies that raise slave armies aren't free.
Or, did I miss where you'd be able to abstain if, for instance, you knew the whole thing was a farce?
> Being a citizen doesn't just have benefits but also responsibilities.
And consequences. If you're a US taxpayer (one of about 200M) you've recently paid for the killing of about 1/100th of someone, likely a non-combatant.
Not to count (of course) those your country's policies have merely displaced, such as many of the poor in Mexico, victims of "Free Trade" and the like.
Darned illegals.
> If we completely open the borders to everyone, then our government wouldn't even be able to serve the current legal citizens.
Cite needed.
The USA can manufacture and deliver a bomb for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, and you don't think it could provide basic food and medical instead?
The USA is not responsible for the citizens of Mexico and to imply that they are is actually insulting to Mexico. It says that they can't take care of their own citizens.
Everything else you said is simply biased slander on your part.
We've screwed them over in war, taken land, and forced them to accept unfair treaties. While that's not all that's happened to them, it is enough.
Like Iraq. It may crawl back to where it was before the attack but only at ten times the effort. Likely it'll bear the scars of the war for a century and, if the USA gets its way, suffer "treaties" long after that. Is it insulting to the Iraqis to say that this will set them back, or is it realistic?
> Everything else you said is simply biased slander on your part.
I could say you're a pro-USA fanboy who'll blindly support them regardless because he's afraid his loyalty will be questioned and his citizenship revoked. But, even if I feel you act that way, I won't. Srs. So don't do it to me either, k?
You forgot sponsoring/petitioning a relative AND the visa lottery (a relative of mine was lucky enough to receive one of these, was able to bring his whole family here, eventually). It has taken us 20 years to bring about 35-40 relatives from South America (more are waiting--in line)... it takes time, money and a LOT of patience. Also helps if you don't get into problems with the law.
The problem with your “cutting in line is bad” line is that people’s choice to immigrate without papers has almost nothing to do with “lines” or policies or lawbreaking, and everything to do with the much more powerfully compelling economic organization of the world (and particularly North America).
1) United States agriculture absolutely depends on a certain amount of unskilled labor to function, for which the United States has been importing Mexican laborers in large numbers for at least 80 years. Ending this importation of labor would literally cause the agriculture system in this country to break down.
2) Many parts of Mexico have been economically depressed with high underemployment/unemployment for decades. There are physically too many people for the quantity of available jobs.
The undocumented immigrants I know (including my parents’ godson who is a migrant agricultural laborer, including several guys who stayed in my family’s house for a few months in the early 1990s, including 30-50% of young men from many indigenous communities in southern Mexico, etc.) DO NOT want to leave their parents, their wives, their children, their communities to go to a strange place where they do not speak the language to do hard labor, missing their children’s early years, DO NOT want to take on tremendous personal financial risk in the form of huge loans from loan sharks who will happily repossess their family’s home or start sending goons to beat people up if the money isn’t repaid.
Unfortunately, the choice is often hover-your-whole-life-just-above-or-below-subsistence-level (i.e. take on personally degrading and dangerous jobs to feed your family, risk starvation, etc.), or clear out and go somewhere else. If the outlet of leaving to the United States were unavailable as an escape valve, I’m quite convinced many would end up either starving or turning to other kinds of desperate action.
In other words, not really a choice at all.
You’re damn right that a system that has people staying in this country without papers isn’t fair and allows those people to be taken advantage of. You know what else isn’t fair and allows people to be taken advantage of? The whole global economic order.
[Note: this is not intended as a call to any particular action; just trying to state facts.]
I sympathize but, ultimately, do not find your argument compelling.
Mexico isn't the only poor country in the world. They just happen to be the one that's closest to the US. When my parents legally immigrated here, South Korea was a poor nation. Look at the history of US immigration and you'll see that this is a pattern (eg. Irish and Italians in the 1900s to modern day immigrants from Africa and Asia).
I'm from LA so I'm well aware of the economic contributions of the Mexican illegal immigrants.
With that said, I don't necessarily agree with your positions. Due to the massive rate of illegal immigration, agriculture has been able to thrive on low cost economics. If they didn't have that labor, it doesn't mean the US would shut down. What it would mean is that the US would have to adjust the economics in order to make it viable. This could result in the following:
a) A much larger legal guest worker program.
b) Importing more agriculture from countries like Mexico.
c) Higher wages for legal farm workers (including legal residents of Mexican origin).
In all 3 of these cases, it would lead to be a better situation for Mexican-Americans or Mexico. In the case of b), it would help the economics of Mexico.
I sympathize that Mexico is a poor country. Like I said before, there are many poor countries in this world. I don't want to sound callous but I don't understand how this is specifically the responsibility of the US. We don't even have a nationalized health system.
Also, allowing illegal immigration does not help Mexico in the long term. It won't fix their lack of economy and unemployment problems. Saying there are "physically too many people" is an excuse IMO. Every country battles the problem of unemployment.
I don't think that anyone not from l.a. understand the illegal immigration thing going on here. it's difficult to give the full image.
I'm living here for more than a year and am still shocked that there are neighborhoods that only speak their native language and are virtually paperless... even though some of them goes to tijuana every other weekend. I'm here legally and still avoid going to mexico to avoid the hassle.
I didn't meant to imply that. I just meant what I said which was that I'm well-aware of the illegal immigrant situation since I've lived in the middle of it.
I was in the same boat too. Reading this article brought back a lot of painful memories. Like the author, I only found out years after I assimilated. For a while, I couldn't even look at the flag or say the pledge without feeling depressed.
Thankfully one of my divorced parents married a citizen close to when I started high school. Eventually I was eligible to apply for citizenship sometime late in college.
I still remember the citizenship 'test' I had to take. It consisted of telling the tester: the colors of flag, reading a sentence that said George Washington was the 1st US president, and telling her who the current president was. Ironically I had passed an AP US history course sometime ago with flying colors.
I think Milton Friedman nailed it when he said that the biggest obstacle to a freer immigration policy is the welfare state.
"[Throughout the history of the U.S.] you had a flood of immigrants, millions of them, coming to this country. What brought them here? It was the hope for a better life for them and their children. And, in the main, they succeeded. It is hard to find any century in history, in which so large a number of people experienced so great an improvement in the conditions of their life, in the opportunities open to them, as in the period of the 19th and early 20th century.
You will find hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’
What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not?
Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he or she works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit.
But on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values."
And yet Canada's population growth is almost entirely due to immigration (population growth by birthrate in Canada is flat or ever so slightly negative).
Immigration to Canada in the 21st century is not the situation you had in the USA pre-1914. At Ellis Island, as long it was deemed that you weren't insane, diseased, or a criminal, and could support yourself, you could get US citizenship in an afternoon.
Although Canada has the most liberal immigration policy of all industrialized countries today, it will still take an applicant years to become a Canadian.
I do not disagree on any of those counts, the fact still remains that impediments to immigration are not caused (either solely or entirely) by welfare states. And more to the point, they can have considerably more liberal policies than less progressive states.
So when i hear people attack socialized systems, especially in oblique manners such as this (rather than highlighting specific policies that need to change), my bullshit radar goes off.
Thank you! Isn't the whole idea of fairness that people should be able to work to support themselves. Isn't that a basic human right? So to all the people clamoring for amnesty for Vargas but think Indian and Chinese workers don't deserve jobs, please think about the logical inconsistencies. The free market has benefited a lot of people. Its about time it also benefited the underclass of workers, who are not part of exclusive unions, whether they be SEIU, or protectionist parties in different nations.
You are a criminal and not a "homebred American". You should stop punishing yourself and return to your home country. It sounds like you have the skills to be very successful there.
So is 'American' culture or tribe affiliation? If he/she grew up in America then deporting him/her is like sending them to a foreign country for all intents and purposes. What if he/she doesn't even know her/his native language? It's not such a black and white issue, as much as you might want it to be.
Its simple. Do you implement the LAW ? or let law hijacked by emotions/plight? The legal aliens are idiots?. There are literally billions of people living below poverty line, who will sacrifice everything just to come to America - legally!!! Hardships, emotions and empathy has no place when you take into account 300 million citizens who are legally bound to support the system (tax, servcies, public shcools, hopsitals etc)
The real gem of this story is that the Secret Service and Whitehouse staff/security couldn't catch the fake social security card/number, that Vargas submitted.
LoL! If those institutions cant catch, then who can? Anybody can come here illegally and live/work enjoy. The fear (no reason for it) they have is similar to fear we have of accident - it rarely happens but needs vigilance/careful.
If law is unjust, you change the law. It has happened in American plenty of times. Hell, America was founded in part because an unjust law was imposed on us.
vargas, when he was smuggled into this country, was not "special case" at that time. This is a typical, hallmark fraud case. The coyote, fake passport, fake student visa, fake greencard the list goes on.
you want the Law to be just in above case? i am just saying there needs to be punishment and accountability.
Believe me, the US immigration law is lot better, just and clever than most other countries. There are lot of legal aliens that comply with it, and grateful for the opportunity.
But in this case, punish whom? Vargas? He was 12 when all this happened, had no say in the matter, and didn't really know what was going on until he turned 16. What should he have done then? Turned himself in as an illegal immigrant?
That argument can be taken advantage of in lot of situations. I empatize with vargas but unfortunately, as the lawyer said, he needs to get back in line - legally.
He committed 70% of the fraud after turning 16. He is not kid anymore, and be responsible for his situation/actions.
What about legal alien kids who come (sent by parents) here legally for undergrad studies...pay upto 100K in tuition fees, and be sent back if can't get job visa or other legal immigration problems? Wouldn't you argue, this kid knows nothing , he was shown the american dream, he deserves greencard/citizenship?
Lot of other scenarios can be argued.
There is law for a reason, and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
What about legal alien kids who come (sent by parents) here legally for undergrad studies...pay upto 100K in tuition fees, and be sent back if can't get job visa or other legal immigration problems? Wouldn't you argue, this kid knows nothing , he was shown the american dream, he deserves greencard/citizenship?
This is just further evidence that the system is terribly broken. And, of course, in this case the kid getting sent home still has the illegal immigration option. He/she's no worse off than someone like Vargas, though residing illegally is probably more difficult when you're already on file with the gov't.
There is law for a reason
So you say. Clearly it's not working out very well, or situations like this (and many others) wouldn't pop up so often, and immigration reform wouldn't be a hot-button issue of national importance.
... and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
They can feel however they want to feel; I don't particularly care. They do have one huge benefit over Vargas' situation: they don't live in fear every day that someone will find out about them and they'll get sent back to their birth country.
There is law for a reason, and 300 millions American citizens and legal aliens abide by it. Do you want make all of them feel idiots?
Obviously you've never dealt with immigration. My wife was a Chinese citizen here on a student visa when we married, and so I've dealt with the process first hand.
It seems to me that most people believe that the process of getting a green card or citizenship is just a matter of filling out a couple forms, going to a notary, and waiting a few months for everything to be approved. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and as a result, many people who want to do everything legally, who really try to do so, wind up with an illegal status.
The process involves scores of forms that must be filled out just so. I can tell you from personal experience that figuring out exactly what the INS wanted was a challenge -- for me, an native English speaker who got 680 on the SAT verbal section. It's nearly impossible for non-native speakers, but many of them can't afford a lawyer to help them.
My wife's application was rejected twice. The first was due to confusion about the correct papers to prove marriage. The second was due to improperly collected fingerprints. We went to the State Police to have the fingerprint cards done. Who is better qualified to take good fingerprint samples than the police, right? We were rejected because the NJ State Police are not certified by the INS as fingerprint authorities. It seems that, to get the prints done legally, we had to drive to the duly certified fingerprint authority, some 40 miles away, which turned out to be a camera shop. Her prints were taken by some Indian guy, obviously an immigrant himself, rather than a police officer -- and these were accepted.
On one occasion the wife was at the INS office in NYC Federal Plaza. The woman at the counter was telling wife that something had to be done just so, no exceptions. Wife asked to speak to a manager to try to clear up the misunderstanding -- a perfectly legitimate request in any business. Rather than trying to work with my wife to resolve the disagreement, the worker pushed a little button, and two big burly guys came out of a door and physically removed my wife from the premises, claiming that she was a threat.
Obviously this process is not about a correct and complete application: they are about perpetuating the INS itself, through the fees for fingerprint certifications; shoring up their little fiefdoms, and so on. Anyone who believes that people who are unsuccessful in navigating this bureaucracy are criminals, bad elements that we don't want in our society, is badly mistaken.
Unjust to ordinary Americans as well as the immigrants, while favoring businesses. If there was a legal avenue to bring in enough individuals for farm work and other manual labor, there would be far fewer illegals living in the shadows and wages would be higher.
So, here we have a philosophical issue: tribe or meritocracy. Considering the historically horrible results with tribalism, meritocracy is best.
Which means, open the borders.
If some lazy spoiled Americans lose their jobs to better skilled immigrants, all the better. That's what this country is about.
The USA has an orderly and, from what I understand from my immigrant friends and coworkers, not too difficult immigration process already. The meritocracy is here already. The article's author decided to cheat the system and be a criminal.
It's not true. I got an employment-based green card a little over a year after I set foot in the country.
What is true is that the system is rigged against Indians and Chinese. If you are Indian and don't have a PhD, then yes, you may have to wait 10 years, probably longer in fact. Unlike the hardships of illegal immigrants, this hardly ever gets any attention though.
I'm an American who has contacts with a group of people who are illegal aliens. We have been trying to go the correct route for years. Trust me when I say it is a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
The entire reason we have a problem is because there isn't a good way to "do things legally".
I had to wait over 8 years to get my citizenship and wade through tons of bureaucracy and paperwork. In my experience it was anything but easy. It took a letter to the governor of my state, asking for help so that I can vote for him; to get things moving. Suddenly everything magically fell into place within two weeks of writing that letter.
> horrible results with tribalism, meritocracy is best.
May I attempt to translate?: Throw my weaker countrymen under the bus. I have no human loyalties to those born in my nation who share my culture. Their welfare is of no consequence compared to potentially profitable foreigners.
I think your "tribalism vs meritocracy" line does get to the heart of the matter. Except I would substitute the term "nationalism" for tribalism. And the story of the 19th and 20th century is the absolute failure of systems of government not oriented around nationalism, and tribe. All over the world empires and larger nations repeatedly broke up into their tribal elements. This is inevitable human nature and fighting it is just stupid. This project of inviting the entire world into the borders of the USA will end in civil war eventually. Enoch Powell was right. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Riv...
It might also be worthwhile to mention that the 20th century has seen a nice collection of wars and atrocities done by nation states upon other nations.
yes he got social security card from SS office but the grounds for it are not valid - making the SS card invalid (when somebody catches him for illegal entry to US).
The secret service is supposed to be able to pull up entire background check - not simply make sure if SSN checkouts against Vargas name.
I have no beef with this guy who was basically forced into breaking the law before he could have responsibility for his actions.
But overall I just feel that the compassion about immigration is misplaced. I don't understand why all the pro-immigration people say "look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them." I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want.
I really don't think we want a situation where breaking the law is the best way to get ahead. If I was waiting to get into the US, I would be pretty upset to see all the benefits going to the people who cut in line.
I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally. Naturally more leniency should be extended to children.
Spouse of first-generation immigrant to the United States here. And back in the 1990s I used to be an immigration lawyer for a small law firm on the west coast. Yes, the personal story of Jose Antonio Vargas is rough on him personally, but a better basis for setting the policy of immigration in the United States would be the stories of the many people who patiently wait in line to be admitted to the United States through legal channels. Look at their stories, and figure out what change of rules and incentives would bring in what subset of those people to become new Americans.
Every country on the planet appears to have restrictions on immigration. Most of the time we don't discuss the policies of countries other than the United States in new submissions to HN, even though HN is an international forum, because most countries are lousy enough to be entrepreneurs in and lousy enough to live in that no one on HN wants to immigrate to those countries. (Instead, most people on HN discuss how to get OUT of dozens of other countries around the world, and in many cases how to immigrate to the United States.) When we consider that the actual number of legally authorized immigrants to the United States each year is one of the highest such numbers in the world (does ANY country have more legal immigrants each year?), it's hard to make a case that the United States is missing out on immigrants by its current policies. Perhaps there are some policy changes to be made on the margins, and on my own part my policy preference would be to make immigration to the United States legally easier and much more commonplace, but the way to make the case for policy reform is to show law-abiding Americans that the policy changes help their lives. The Americans I know, including many law-abiding first-generation immigrants, want policy reform that makes like better in general for all people already in America, as well as for people intending to immigrate here.
AFAIK, most (66%) legal immigration into the United States is currently due to family reunification reasons, rather than for skilled employees, humanitarian reasons, or diversity [1]. Whether or not this is economically rational or beneficial to America or other Americans can be argued.
In Europe it's a lot easier to immigrate in general. Especially as an EU citizen. And if your country is also a member of the Schengen space, you can just move around using only your ID.
My uncle immigrated in Spain for instance; entered and worked illegally at first (since a Schengen visa was required of him, and he could find illegal work more easilly anyway), but forward 15 years later, and now he has full citizenship and a perfectly legal driver's license. And he has had a legal job for 10 years already.
For me I have the following difficulty - you can't obtain a visa for work in the US if you don't have a college degree in the domain you want to work in. And then it's extremely difficult to be a startup founder that way, since with that kind of visa you can only work as an employee and have a sponsor. Unless you can obtain a Visa at the lottery or for extraordinary merits.
This is absolutely insane - since I just got out and bought a college degree in CS, waited 3 years to get it of course, but I got it, and now I can get an US Visa.
But then again, why should I? Why wouldn't I go work in Zurich or in London or in Berlin, or just stay where I am, since obviously the US doesn't want me?
"In Europe it's a lot easier to immigrate in general."
Within Europe, yes. It's hard to immigrate into Europe coming from outside.
"Especially as an EU citizen."
Only as an EU citizen. If you're not, it's hard to travel around Europe - you need a lot of papers, for each country you go to, and it's not a matter of filling in a form online and they'll send you the papers; it involves certified translations, several appointments with embassies and the like, etc.
As to the last sentence, there is a reason people flock to the US - because it's simply a better climate there to start a business. Good luck in Zurich (of all places! the Swiss are as close-minded and protective of their nationality and 'independence' as it comes!) or anywhere else in Europe. Of course it can be done, many companies are founded and are successful; but nowhere near the same level as in the US.
One could argue that current Europe is a 'United States of Europe'. So no surprise here. In USA it is also easy to 'immigrate' from one state to another if you are a US citizen.
Immigrating to Europe from outside Shengen space is as hard as getting to US from outside.
The US does have a high rate of immigration, but on the other hand it's underpopulated compared to other developed countries. The biggest reason to loosen restrictions on immigration IMO is that without doing so the US is going to have difficulty with the payouts for social security and so forth as more baby boomers retire and there are fewer new entrants to the workforce. This is a medium-term problem (~20 years), left undone then it will be much more expensive to handle by the time it becomes acute, as countries in central and south America are more like to exhibit a labor shortage than surplus and will be competing with the US for the same labor pool.
The USA is overpopulated. Most population centers are facing fresh water and also sewage infrastructure crises within the next 20 years. We are full up.
High productivity farm land is being destroyed by development at an alarming rate. The US is steadily becoming a food importer in category after category, where once we exported. This puts further pressure on our already abysmal trade deficit. This is also a national security issue.
That indicates to me that we need higher density and less sprawl. And before someone says well how do we force people to stay close to the center, check out Portland, OR:
How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?"
And why can't we tackle these problems at the same time? Why can't we even tackle these problems _one_ at a time? The Dream Act has been under review since 2001. It is a bill that can be voted on and passed in literally two days. Why not? ... I'll answer. Our impotent Congress, two year election cycles, and media that no longer holds anybody accountable.
I agree it seems heartless to not grant kids like this guy residency. The problem I have with this is that that would just make the moral hazard stronger. Parents already smuggle their kids into the US to give them a better life. If they knew that these kids would then be eligible for legalization, it's hard to see how even more people wouldn't try.
I'm not a Minuteman and I'm not going to argue for any border fences, but it seems like the root cause of the problem is that the risk of getting caught is so low that many people try it. The real solution would be to make people not want to immigrate illegally in the first place.
A lot of things are disruptive. Doesn't make them bad or undesirable. We talk about "disruptive" new technologies here on HN all the time and how the best progress is made by disrupting the status quo. I won't claim that all disruption is good, but who's to say a little disruption in the immigration world wouldn't be?
If an unemployed person loses out to an immigrant (legal or illegal), clearly there's a reason. I'd rather have jobs filled with better people than pander to people who are currently more eligible solely because they had the luck to be born in a certain place at a certain time.
Sure, all else being constant, you want jobs to be filled by the best people available. More likely, the market will see to it that the best people per funds spent are employed, resulting in a race to the bottom. And there are downsides and costs to having millions of unemployed, too. You'll end up paying for them one way or another, through unemployment benefits or prisons.
Are you cool paying healthcare and education costs for the immigrant's four kids? His low hourly wage does not come close to representing his costs given a social welfare state. This is essentially what is happening as criminal employers hire criminal aliens: they externalize massive costs to the larger population.
It sounds like the problem here wouldn't be the immigration, but rather that moving between economic classes is difficult for those with no skills. If we could provide ways for any citizen or immigrant to gain useful skills that are in demand, then we would help mitigate the problems of unemployment as a whole and help reduce the spending burdens of social programs.
The reason he has a depressed wage is because he's undocumented and therefore can be exploited. Reduce the friction involved and more people will be documented, and more on their way to full citizenship. Shady employers won't be able to pay less than min/market wage since the now-documented workers have legal recourse.
> How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?"
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law.
I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.
Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to.
And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me.
I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule".
We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".
I'm not sure whose viewpoint your arguing against, because it's sure not mine.
If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next).
Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.
Right, although I never said to open the border, nor hinted at any specific solutions.
More so, I asked for you to see the situation in a different light. I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else", while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article, and in essence, ignoring your own history and how you got to where you are. In my opinion, its actually a bit arrogant and self-centered, to think that its just that easy to dictate something so complicated as immigration.
Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.
If you could tell me, what "fairness" and "regulation" did you face when you came to America? Or your parents, or their parents, or theirs' as the case may be. The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
> Right, although I never said to open the border, nor hinted at any specific solutions.
Exactly, you seem to prefer to philosophize and invoke moral criticism than to actually discuss practical solutions.
> I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else"
I started this thread by arguing that we should have compassion for people who run into headaches while trying to immigrate legally, and that we should aim to make things easier for them.
> while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
> The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.
The only difference between me and Bill Gates' kids is who we happened to be born to, but that doesn't entitle me to grow up in Bill Gates' house.
It is you who are making an argument of entitlement. A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa. The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
The only thing that makes my position more privileged than a Mexican's is that my countryman and ancestors have built a more prosperous economy than Mexico has. That's dumb luck on my part, no doubt, which I am grateful for. I didn't do anything to earn that.
But there's no way everyone on earth is going to be born with equal opportunity. And there is no virtue in opening wide the gates of immigration if just ends up making the (currently) desirable place more like the (currently) undesirable place.
Well, there might just be a difference in the way we see things. Its comments like these that bug me:
I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.
Obviously, we don't hold children to the same standard as adults. However, the fact that its not an implicit belief (to give a child benefit of the doubt) and has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such. That even though he came here as a kid, that this is all he knows and lives, we should be lenient when we consider kicking him out. I see selfish ration and logic in your words, but I see no compassion or sensibility for others.
A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa.
You'll never work in Mexico because nobody will pay you a livable wage, thats the difference. It sounds the equivalent of someone saying: "I don't step through your garbage dump looking for food, so you don't step through my wine vineyard. That's called fairness."
The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.
Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed. By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite. You know, the people who account for something like 90% of the worlds wealth in 10% of the population.
Hey Coryl, I'm enjoying this discussion between you two and I think you both make excellent points and I'm learning from the discussion. But this out of bounds -
> has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority.
You really ought not personally insult the guy you're discussing with... it doesn't help the discussion at all. Really uncalled for, haberman is disagreeing with you but he's being civil. If you don't like his points, argue without the insults.
Thanks. They weren't intended to be insults for insults sake, but reflect how I see, as what I believe to be, his perspective of immigrants as criminals.
To say something like "immigrant children broke the law, but since they're kids, we should be lenient when we consider punishing them", carries a pass of judgement that I perceive to be as a statement on whom is more righteous or more privileged. I don't feel like anyone has the right to pass that judgment nor harbor that mentality, just because they themselves are secure in their person and place by chance and fortune. It shows little thought or consideration for other human beings, especially when complex situations become simply labelled as " illegal immigrant", or "lawbreaker".
So while what I said may seem insulting, they are not intended to be direct insults. I feel what I feel, and I'm just doing my best to describe that.
> To say something like "immigrant children broke the law, but since they're kids, we should be lenient when we consider punishing them", carries a pass of judgement that I perceive to be as a statement on whom is more righteous or more privileged.
If you came home and a homeless person was sleeping in your bed, would you consider it an intolerable passing of judgement to say they shouldn't have done that and you will be "deporting" them out of your house?
if the homeless person was a child, yeah it would be an intolerable passing of judgement.
and if i had a huge house with more than enough space, and one day discovered that a homeless child had moved into a tiny space a few decades ago, contributed extensively to maintaining that space, and is now an adult, i would say it's completely intolerable for me to evict them at that point.
> shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such.
What bothers me about your attitude is that you invoke a sense of moral superiority to defend what is nothing more than breaking the rules to get ahead. It shows more compassion for the people who will take what they want than the people who work to get it.
I can have compassion for people who come to this country looking for opportunity. But I have 10x more compassion and respect for the person who is stuck in their own country because they can't get a visa than the person who decided to break the law to get ahead.
I'm pretty sure that I would feel the same way if I had been born in Mexico. I've always been a "wait in line" kind of guy, and I'm pretty sure I would resent seeing the most impassioned defense of immigrants directed at the line-jumpers rather than the people who are still waiting in line.
> Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed.
Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.
Present-day Mexicans are mostly descendants of the Spanish and the indigenous tribes like the Aztec and Maya. The Spanish conquered and colonized the Americas for 400 years, destroying entire civilizations and enslaving the people. The indigenous people practiced human sacrifice as well as slavery. No civilization has clean hands when judged by the standards of today.
And what exactly do you think the USA did to "take opportunity away" from "some" (this turn of phrase conveniently implies a general feeling of guilt without being specific enough to evaluate). Canada seems to be doing fine, so how are you going to pin Mexico's relative poverty on the USA?
> By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite.
No, I mean "most of the world." People who are forced to leave their home are called "refugees," which are estimated to be 62M people worldwide, or 1% of the world population.
> Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.
It's true. If we applied the same rules to countries that we do to the mafia, you'd be a criminal conspirator in an agency that has routinely used murder for control and profit.
> It's true. If we applied the same rules to countries that we do to the mafia, you'd be a criminal conspirator in an agency that has routinely used murder for control and profit.
You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption.
I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.
If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.
I'm not seeing what the negative consequences are. Are you referring to the fact that some of the immigrants were criminals and mental patients, who were encouraged to emigrate from Cuba and take their problems with them? The article you cite says the scope of this problem is debatable and may well have been overstated.
Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
> Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?
Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?
I'd like to move in the direction of eliminating them, yes. I don't see any reason to keep US/Canadian border controls, given that the relative parity of incomes means there isn't likely to be some huge, destabilizing migration. The EU's Schengen free-travel zone is a good precedent to follow on that, imo. Mexico is a harder case because of how screwed up the country currently is; opening borders tends to work better between relatively stable countries. But certainly we could start with Canada.
I think you should answer my question first, since the existence of interstate crime is indisputable and this doesn't seem qualitatively different from the deleterious effects which you are citing in the Cuban example.
But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.
Now you're assuming that our current regulation system is right.
I think it's clear that our current system is broken. It's far too expensive to enforce our current system, so we're left with laws that are ineffectual. Reality trumps abstract ideas, and I think we need laws that deal effectively with the reality of our situation.
You keep framing things in black and white and I'm trying to make it explicit. If you don't mean what I think you mean then I am reading you wrong or it's not clear.
"I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation"
See, more black and white. I don't think anyone is suggesting no regulation. You aren't putting words in my mouth are you? ;)
Why don't we create a legal process to let people that want to work here come and work. Why limit it so much?
> It's far too expensive to enforce our current system
Huh? Our current system simply isn't enforced. It's not a matter of cost at all. It's just expedient for an alliance of big business and certain political elements to allow a continued flow of criminal aliens.
I mean, look at Israel. They enforce a much more restrictive immigration system at low cost with no difficulty. Or Japan, or Korea, or any of dozens of other nations.
The Native Americans lost it fair-and-square through force of arms. Moreover, much of North America was unoccupied, unorganized territory open for colonization by Western Civilization.
Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
So just to get this straight, you would have no probs if China were to declare war on the U.S. tomorrow, win, kill off people living in America, and settle it with their citizens?
So, just because your mother put you on a plane with a complete stranger when you were 12, you should be thrown back to a third world country for a decade, even though your contributions to American society outweigh most native born citizens?
Are you replying to the right comment? Nowhere in this thread have I advocated deporting people who were brought here as children. I have advocated the opposite.
You're blaming the laws of the country you want to recognize you instead of your parents who did not recognize the laws of the country they smuggled you into.
>I think the people we should have compassion for are the people who are trying to do things the right way but running into headaches. Those are the people we should make things easier for, not the people who are willing to break the law to get what they want.
>I don't understand why it's so controversial among the pro-immigration crowd to say that people shouldn't come here illegally.
It's because the official green card process is [utterly ridiculous](http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/01/what-part-of-legal-imm...) and stacked against almost every prospective immigrant. It's one of those cases where the law has failed to catch up to the underlying economics of the situation: immigrants need jobs and the US has a need for cheap or highly specialized labour.
That is the process that needs to be reformed. Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives.
"Kicking out the people who are already in the country doesn't achieve anything other than waste more money and ruin more lives."
It achieves fairness about who gets in. Rules may need to be revised, etc. No arguments here. But while the revision is taking place or not taking place the rules need to be followed.
Well, no, this is assuming the problem gets fixed and most of the undocumented people living in the US suddenly become eligible.
If a rule is unjust to begin with, I don't see how being fair in its application is all that paramount. Insert any number of parallels to the War on Drugs here.
If life were fair we'd all be living in luxury and wouldn't have to worry about this immigration crap. But life isn't fair. Laws aren't always fair. What inherent rule of the universe states that breaking an unfair law is wrong? Sure, you risk getting punished if you're caught. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try, and that doesn't mean I'm not going to be sympathetic if I happen to agree with your point of view, and wish that there can be an outcome where you don't get punished.
What positive benefit would come about due to kicking Vargas out of the country? Those on his side will just be angry, and the xenophobes will just remain as they are, satisfied that they ruined a life.
even when i was jumping through all the hoops for my GC (took me 7+ years), i still felt strong compassion for these poor guys sitting under the hot midday Sun on San Antonio cross El Camino and ready to work for minimal money while i was driving by in air conditioned car to my nice hi-tech job.
Yes, if my GC failed, i'd be strongly disappointed, to say the least, would be forced to start to think again where to go - Canada, England, Germany, Australia... didn't want back to Russia (even though programmer's salary there would make me live comparably much better than i live here) - tough choices ...
These poor guys waiting for a piece of a tough dirty day job - what choice they have? what alternative did they have before crossing into US illegally if what they have now is supposedly a better one?
You know, the basis of democracy is that the laws are ultimately made by the same people who have to uphold them. But that doesn't hold for immigration laws. Immigration laws are made by one group of people that is completely unaffected by them for an entirely different group of people to respect.
That's why, in my view, immigration laws have no legitimacy whatsoever. Where you are born is complete chance. Some of those who happen to be born in better places think that it serves them well to keep others out in order to keep that unfair competitive advantage. Sometimes it's the very same people who pride themselves of being in favor of free trade, a level playing field, antiprotectionist, etc. A ridiculously disingenuous position considering the most important thing everyone has to trade is their own time, effort and skills.
They find all kinds of spurious reasons to defend this unfair and blatently self-serving position. One of the worst is that all countries have immigration laws. This argument mixes up practical matters with ethical ones. Obviously, it's difficult for one country to unilaterally abolish all immigration laws. But that shouldn't convince anyone that these laws have any moral foundation or are based on democracy or that they personally have a right to tell others where to settle.
EXACTLY!!! There are so many people who are trying to come and contribute to the US society through legal means. They run into all kinds of obstacles and barriers. Meanwhile it's OK to get a citizenship through fake passports?
Oh on a philosophical level it is quite unfair. It's not fair at all that all humans are not regarded as equals. It's really unfair that I should be withheld from visiting or living on a piece of the planet because there happens the be a group of people on it that made a "nation" and the "nation" has invisible "borders" and the "borders" are by "law" not penetrable by people from my "nation".
But such is the case. If Jose or anyone else wants to change this inherent unfairness they can do that.
Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line. It is extremely unfair to the people who are also trying to immigrate to the US, but do so by entering lotteries, applying for GCs and all.
May I learn the reason of the down-vote? I am answering to the issue of the fairness of citizenship-by-birth raised in the parent. I draw a distinction between entrenched inequality in world order and the more amenable inequalities.
You're framing the argument in a way that makes your position stronger and his weaker. But, in your framing, I think you miss some basic points.
For me, it comes down to what he said here:
>Meanwhile, though, I have no sympathy for people who are trying to shortcut the established processes. The "hope for a better life" just doesn't justify bypassing all the other people that wait in line.
The thing is that everyone else who is in the line is also hoping for a better life. So what justifies someone cutting?
In this specific case, he had no choice in the matter (put on a plane as a kid) so I think he should be allowed to stay. But every other adult is, in my opinion, cutting in line.
Instead of comparing illegal immigrants against legal immigrants, focus on comparing illegal immigrants against citizens who got their privileges by birth.
Share with us why immigrants are discriminated against and if this discrimination is fair.
Again, you're just reframing the argument in order to make it convenient for yourself.
I understand your position and, philosophically, it's an interesting one to take. But if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry.
It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world. In the world, we are citizens of nations and citizenship is defined by laws. In the US, that citizenship can be given through birth.
Is that fair? Maybe not. But life's not fair. America has established a legal immigration system in order to (try to) make it fair. Simply ignoring that whole system and questioning the basic order of things seems like just an excuse to cut in line.
> if you take your position to the extreme then there should be NO concept of citizenry.
Yeah. It's just what the first people to go somewhere say when someone else tries to join them. "Take off, we first settlers don't want you here."
We don't recognize first-posters as owning the thread, or (except in the USA) first-solvers owning the formula, so why should we recognize first-squatters owning the land?
> It's all fine and dandy as a theoretical concept but has no bearing (or utility) on the real world.
Not at all. The concept of doing whatever you want is firmly established in the real world. Your adoptive countrymen weren't welcomed here (or at least, not in much of 'here'). They came by force and trick, murdering and stealing.
At least today's undocumented immigrants live in peace.
> At least today's undocumented immigrants live in peace.
Did you RTA? The whole article was about how he lives in constant fear. OTOH, my parents were legal immigrants and have no guilt over the british colonists who took this land over from the native americans. Same goes for me.
You can stick your head in the sand but, at the end of the day, you still have to obey the laws of the country you're in. Even if you join a cult or live in the remote mountains of Montana, you're still bound by law. This is true for you and for people who come here illegally.
No, at least today's immigrant is living at peace with you - not killing you for your place in line, as our country's founders did for their place in line. I feel an honest refugee would be a better neighbor than someone who'd hold the lack of paperwork over someone's head.
You really don't have much to complain about.
As for law though, and obeying it, no. No, you don't have to obey the laws of the land you're in. In fact, there are times no good person would do so. It's just rules other people made up, not 'right'.
You're right I can't change the law but I can undermine it - make it easier to break and escape punishment for. Waste resources chasing ghosts instead of waging war and evicting the needy.
While you understand the definition of discrimination, you fail to understand the concept and it's legal use.
Discrimination, in the legal sense, says that there should be no prejudice against people by race, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other protected groups.
Criminals lose rights. They lose the right to roam freely in public among many other freedoms. Some of them lose the right to vote. By your definition, we discriminate against criminals since we treat them differently than we do law-abiding citizens.
Do you disagree with the disparity in this treatment?
Many people see illegal immigrants as breaking the law. Ergo the use of the word "illegal." Many people see them as criminals.
Ergo, differential treatment (or discrimination) is justified.
Even outside of these concepts, discrimination happens all the time. When people apply for a job, the smarter, more qualified candidate is discriminated against lesser candidates. Is this not fair?
When the NFL drafts certain players over others, that's discrimination. Is this not fair?
Anytime a person is chosen over another, you have discrimination. Your assertion that it is inherently unfair is wrong.
Meanwhile it's OK to get a citizenship through fake passports?
Why not? Think about it has hacking / routing around a broken system and it doesn't sound so bad. These are precisely the kinds of people I want living in working in the US: hard-working individuals who want to better themselves and those around them, and are willing to do anything to get there.
> More importantly, we shouldn't restrict our policy decisions based on avoiding making people upset.
I think that's a fair point. A more important argument is that making the system too lenient towards people who have come here illegally creates the wrong incentives.
Perhaps. But that also shouldn't stop us from making the system better and more sane. Today the system is ridiculous and laden with vestiges of waves of anti-immigrant sentiment in the past. It needs to become sane, and if that means cutting a few corners then I think that's better than continuing to perpetuate injustice and ridiculous laws that don't uphold the ideals of our country.
"look at these poor undocumented immigrants -- we should make life better for them."
What I really don't get is how incapable the bleeding hearts are of understanding that immigration hurts the weakest Americans. Wages are driven down. See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots...
This dynamic applies well farther up the economic food chain.
See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers?
Are you being serious or are you having a bad day?
I would be scared to be around someone like you who makes such sweeping generalizations.
Are you really this naive about the landscaping business in much of the country? In a great many cases you can reliably assume people are here illegally.
I really hope that you have citations for that. Not saying that you're correct or incorrect (I have not personally gone out of my way to find landscapers and determine whether they're legal residents or not, so I obviously have no data points to contribute), but in the absence of some sources - or at the very least a few anecdotes! - it sounds like you're making sweeping generalizations about groups of people, possibly based on their appearance.
> See that crew of criminal alien hispanic landscapers? See the unemployed American blacks in your city? Think really hard and try to connect the dots...
Repressive government policies. Exactly.
We're supposed to believe the free market is efficient and useful, but that free people are inefficient and problematic.
She understood. So the choir toured Hawaii instead, with me in tow. (Mrs. Denny and I spoke a couple of months ago, and she told me she hadn’t wanted to leave any student behind.)
Sometimes teachers seem to me like the downright best humanity has to offer.
Even if I weren't open to letting educated members of society earn a legal green card, I think this would've changed my mind.
The inability to obtain US citizenship even though I was attending a consecutively #1 rated program on the continent, at one of the best schools in the country really dimmed my own hopes. I remember wanting to apply for an internship at MIT Lincoln labs for anti-ballistic missile defense, and being crushed when I realized I couldn't.
It's also awful on the permanent residency front. I lived in the US for almost a decade now, graduated from top 5 school, currently a graduate student in n.1 US school in my field, while working at a top firm full-time. Green card application got put on permanent hold for a technicality (same thing for hundreds of my fellow international coworkers), and so it will likely take me anywhere between another 5-10 years to get one. And I'm fully documented up to my ears, I imagine there's even more horseshit for illegals.
No prospect of ever leaving my employer unless I'm willing to go back to the other side of the pond...
To expand on the point: skilled immigrants in Canada gain permanent residency (aka the equivalent of the green card) immediately upon entry. You can work for anyone, in any field, without restriction. You have health care, education, and all of the benefits of anyone else except the vote.
And that only takes three years of continuous residency.
Compare with the US: must make the H-1B quota, wait years, apply for Green card, wait even more years (EB-3 is what, 6-7 years at this point?), then get your green card. The entire time you're an indentured slave to your employer who can take advantage of you every which way knowing you're locked in. Barbaric.
For skilled workers, you're in if belong to a narrow category of professions and have worked for a year in the field[0], or you have a job offer. Otherwise, you need to score enough points[1] on this semi asinine questionnaire.
Things that work in your favour: Knowledge of French alongside English, a bachelor's degree, having studied in canada, being 21-49 years old, having lots of work experience, having a spouse with lots of work experience or who is studying or working in Canada, and having immediate family in Canada.
Frankly, I think we could do a lot to improve this scenario since there is this perverse catch 22 where a lot of employers (for good and bad reasons) will not heed attention to foreign qualifications claiming you lack "Canadian experience". This results in having engineers and doctors drive cabs for a living which feels... unethical.
On the other hand, my personal experience with immigration suggests that a majority of people skirt around the legal pipeline precisely because this system, while somewhat more humane than the US, is still somewhat too onerous.
It's not employers that prevent doctors and engineers from working -- it's provincial licensing organizations that base their certification at least in part on Canadian education. Some provinces have programs that allow foreign-trained professionals to quickly shore up their qualifications, but it takes time.
Personally, I'd take this approach over letting anyone who claims to have an engineering or medical degree practice obtain certification and practice accordingly.
It goes beyond professional licensing - my father is an IT consultant (a damn good one at that) that started out in Canada after immigrating, building security cameras in an assembly line.
He had years of international consulting experience in Asia, flying all over the world. Nobody would acknowledge either his education (masters degree) nor his >10-year experience in the field.
His path was: factory line worker -> IT infrastructure wiring guy -> front-line customer service phone jockey -> senior customer service phone jockey -> DBA -> consultant. So at least he's back where he belongs. Honestly, I think it was years wasted.
The Canadian government's definition of "valuable international education/experience" is rarely ever acknowledged by private industry - licensed/regulated field or otherwise.
Indeed it snows :) Funny! But seriously, the cold in Toronto is as bad as New York.
Also, programmer salaries aren't exactly the same. A top notch coder in SF Bay area or NYC makes x2-x6 than a Canadian. Apart from money, I felt that there were few hardcore jobs that would improve my skills. Nortel was an exception before it closed down.
That said, Canada is a pretty nice place to live. Immigrants aren't expected to assimilate. Rather, society is supposed to be enriched by your diversity. My family immigrated to Canada when I was a teenager and I've always been grateful to the country for accepting us. It's unfortunate that I've had to leave her to pursue educational and professional growth opportunities in the US. Not sure where my future lies ... but I miss Canada dearly.
The Bay Area has gay friendly "adults". High school and below is a completely different can of worms. Being unPC is unfortunately a trait. And I don't mean to rag on all high school students but the most popular, and vocal, ones can be downright shits. And they are the ones that set the tone.
Many people who commented here have never attended an interview in a US consulate. It is a 3 step process and it is not an easy one.Some times the process can last more than 5 hours .it was one of the nervous moments of my life. To get a visa extension every 2 years I need to provide a letter from my employer ,tax documents and the last 3 pay stubs. Although, I have every document my visa could be rejected for no reason or sent for an audit or RFI(Request for more Info).This process can take around 2-3 months with re- submissions and RFIs.The Visa extension process became more rigorous in Obama's administration. The bar has been set really high which is good.some of my friends did not get an extension and so they had to leave the country .The petition fee has been hiked to $5000 from $1800 with an extra $1500 for the attorney's fee.Very few employers are willing to sponsor a work permit ,Hardly any one is willing sponsor a GC in this economy.Even if they are willing ,the backlog is almost 6 years.so if I apply now there is a chance I might get a GC in 2017.The bottom line is, I don't support illegal immigration of any kind.Immigration should be based on qualification .Although,what kind qualification is debatable .Thats a different story.If you guys are empathetic to illegal immigrants go look at the US consulates across the world where thousands of people stand every day to get an "Approved" stamp on their passports.
Good to hear this issue raised. In The Netherlands where I live this has been an issue several times: the immigration process is so long (can take 8-10 years) that kids grow up here, and for instance girls would be rejected by everyone if returned to their native Afghanistan. Several high profile cases were handled and several have been allowed to stay, or atleast finish high school / college.
The issue is just getting bigger however: I find it scary that policies have gone so far that a Dutch citizen has to go live in Belgium or Spain once married so that their spouse can get a work permit and eventually gain EU citizenship...
I doubt this will change many people's minds about immigration though. The "what part of illegal don't you understand" crowd is also the "fuck you, i've got mine" crowd, and they've already got theirs.
I convinced myself that if I worked enough, if I achieved enough, I would be rewarded with citizenship. I felt I could earn it.
Has that ever happened? Reading this gives me a sense of cognitive dissonance between the US as a place 'where anyone can make it' and the US as a legalistic bureaucracy.
The "anyone can make it" part is true: lots of LEGAL immigrants and their children have done far better than their peers in their home countries (facetious example: Obama, but there are many many unknown people like that).
For all it faults, America remains the most meritocratic country in the world. Discouraging ILLEGAL immigration should not lower America's standing in that respect.
America remains the most meritocratic country in the world
This needs a citation. America-is-great chest pounding aside, the only reputable reference I remember seeing about this was from the Economist, who claimed that the correlation between your wealth and that of your parents is stronger in the US than in many European countries. So it seems that, at least measured in that way, the US is not a particularly good meritocracy but rather a class society.
"It looks as if the American Dream is far more likely to remain a dream for Americans than it is for people living in Scandinavian countries. Greater inequalities of outcome seem to make it easier for rich parents to pass on their advantages. While income differences have widened in Britain and the USA, social mobility has slowed."
That would not be strong refuting evidence. Given both genetics and environment factors (smart successful parents have more to teach, perhaps), I would expect successful children from successful parents. On the other hand, in a society where success were arbitrary, I would expect high incoherence between parent and child success.
I suppose by "anyone can make it" we could literally mean, "irrespective of your abilities anyone can make it", but I don't think that's the sense most people mean and that's not the meaning of meritocracy. Talent and/or a hard working mien are not bestowed randomly at birth.
Given both genetics and environment factors ... I would expect successful children from successful parents.
This is an assertion which, conveniently enough for those on the top, is entirely indistinguishable from a class society. It could be that you are right and that all the low-wage workers in the U.S. are low-wage because they are just plain dumb and not at all because they never had any of the opportunities growing up that children of well-off parents do. Personally, I don't put nearly so much power in genetic determinism.
tl;dr: there are big differences between countries in the impact of parental education and earnings on the education and earnings of their kids. Parental success is a very strong determiner of both in the U.S., but much less so in, say, Canada and Finland (both of which are among the top four best-scoring countries on the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment).
The genetics you can't avoid, but the point of a true meritocracy is that you don't have the environmental factors.
I suppose by "anyone can make it" we could literally mean, "irrespective of your abilities anyone can make it"
No, that's not what it means. It means that if you have the competence to suceed, society won't hold you back. Environmental factors are all about lifting some people, and holding others back via society.
Another way to put this, if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were raised in Watts, what are the chances they'd resemble the ppl they are now? 50%? .01%?
The unmentioned flipside is that other countries love to export people to the USA in order to get foreign remittances back to the home country up.
The elite , about the top 2-10% in those countries own most of the businesses, and like things the way they are - no need for political change, as the remittances take some of the pressure for change off, while they eventually end up pocketing a large portion of the remittances due to those monies being spent for products and services (at the businesses they own).
I'm an employer in Florida. Employers are legally required to verify eligibility via form I-9. However, I see no real enforcement of this other than occasional roundups by INS at farms. The reason these roundups occur is that the farms are not complying with the law.
We need immigration reform. It is unconscionable that people who grew up here are put in this situation.
I've been thinking the best way to get reform is to force the government to strictly enforce the I-9 requirement. If every business owner was forced to adhere to the law and only hire those legally eligible, they would be in favor of reform as well.
We have a situation where people complain about "illegal immigrants" while silently profiting from them. If the reality of the situation were exposed, I think Republicans would suddenly find themselves in agreement with Democrats about reform.
Simple question, why is it not possible to have unrestricted immigration between nations period? Please do not give an answer that requires respecting privilege of native born inhabitants; by doing this you are implicitly stating that these people are more deserving than someone coming from some other place by right of birth. You may as well agitate for the divine right of kings and the reinstatement of the monarchy if you view this as an acceptable path to tread.
Also, it seems to me that actually making immigration from and to anywhere on the planet would pretty much force governments to actually compete with each other, a country in which nobody wants to live is not a country that will stick around for long if everyone is free to leave at their choosing. Wouldn't this be a net positive, really?
Terrific story. I can't understand how even the most heartless xenophobe could possibly support the deportation of a someone who graduated from a US university. Utterly self-defeating from a social and an economic standpoint.
He was 12 when he was put on the plane, 16ish when he tried to get a driver's license. A Minor. He can't easily go back. He can't legally stay. He's dammned either way, so he makes the best of it. Sooner or later, it's going to catch up with him.
The adult who put him in the situation is not in the country. At least one of the others responsible is dead.
The point (which you're clearly missing) is that this shouldn't be a crime. Our economy and our society loses in a very tangible way because of our draconian and ultimately childish attitude toward immigration.
The point at which law becomes a hinderance and not help is when it gets changed or broken.
Basically, all you are suggesting is: go find a "citizen" to trap in matrimony in order to be a legal immigrant?
The matrimony route is especially relevant, since in the US it is the one of the faster means to obtaining citizenship compared to other methods immigrate legally.
One of the fallacies about immigration is that anybody can become a permanent resident by marrying a citizen. This path to permanent residency was basically choked off in the 1980s by requiring that the newlywed couple leave the country for a few years before they're allowed to come back to the US to live, and even then, it's not certain that the government will let it happen. This means that if I happen to fall in love and marry someone who happens to not be a citizen of the US, I'm totally at the mercy of the government.
Huh? "Anybody" (i.e. excluding terrorists, nazis, communists, HIV-positives, and other comparatively small segments of the population) can become a US permanent resident by marrying a US citizen unless they are present in the US illegally. Then the case is more complicated, but in many cases you are still eligible.
Only if they are the wrong ones... Joke aside, I don't think you're automatically excluded, but you do have to answer yes or no as to whether you are or have been affiliated with said groups on the application form.
Please reread, I said "this path to permanent residency," not "the only path".
You can become a permanent resident by getting married, but the process isn't straightforward. The draconian requirement that the newly-married couple leave the US reduces some fraud, I'm sure, but it also causes an enormous amount of disruption for the 99% of legitimately married couples who have families and livelihoods within the US.
Jeffrey, there is no such requirement. Someone who marries an American cannot immediately adjust to permanent resident status, but is (typically) granted conditional residence, which is in practice the same thing except that it can be easily revoked if it looks like the marriage is a sham. After 2 years the not-so-newlyweds can (in fact, must) apply to have the conditional status removed, at which point the foreign spouse becomes a permanent resident. This is almost always a formality except in cases of marriage fraud or involvement in criminal activity. There is no requirement to leave the country. In fact, for people who have been married longer than 2 years or living together a long time, USCIS will sometimes waive the conditional status (and thus the fee to have lifted later) because they have prima facie evidence of a bona fide relationship. It's only in cases where they have serious doubts about the honesty of the applicant that they require the couple to leave the US and wait several years to reapply.
IANAL but you are definitely misinformed about this, and should not allow it to interfere with your love life.
"This path" is what I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm a non-American who married a US citizen, and I just got my green card. There was no requirement that we leave for any amount of time. The whole process took 5 months and was about as painless as anything dealing with the USCIS could possibly be.
You are quote wrong about this. That happens in some circumstances, but it is not the rule. Indeed, a major part of the problem is that the immigration system is wastefully arbitrary and unpredictable.
Crime should have consequences. Sometimes you have to spend a night in jail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks) Otherwise people might mistake that crime for living an honorable and hardworking life.
"My only solution, the lawyer said, was to go back to the Philippines and accept a 10-year ban before I could apply to return legally."
I am all for letting Vargas stay, and for liberalizing this country's immigration policies.
But would going abroad for 10 years really be so bad?
Vargas has proven himself to be an accomplished professional writer and should have no problem finding work pretty much anywhere he goes.
As a writer and a reporter he would gain valuable international experience by living and writing abroad. He could see the world. reunite with his mother and brother, learn something about his country of origin.. and, who knows, he might find he prefers the Philippines (or some other country) even more than the US.
He does have a life in America and that's the country he's most used to, so leaving won't be easy; but he said he hasn't let himself get too close to anyone here, so that should make it somewhat easier to move somewhere else.
When you're young 10 years might seem like a long time, but it's really not that long in the scheme of things. If he's in his 20's now, he'll be in his 30's when he gets back -- plenty of time left to rebuild his life here, should he wish to.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee he would be allowed back in, and it would be stressful or even dangerous not to be able to come back in in the meantime, should he need to for some reason. So it's certainly not an enviable position to be in; but it's not necessarily the worst thing in the world to go abroad for 10 years -- many people do so gladly and willingly.
If anyone is interested in investing in a project to legally provide work opportunities for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US as children like this journalist, you can send me a message via gmail and I'll pass it on to a law professor I know who is working on this issue with various legal and business leaders in the Bay Area.
Serious inquiries only please, this project is likely to require a significant commitment of financial and/or political capital.
Working on this issue how? Trying to find/provide work for these people or simply trying to change the law. There's a big difference between the two and knowingly employing an undocumented worker (illegal alien) is a felony.
It's illegal, but it's not a felony. Huge difference. Hiring undocumented workers, when detected (which rarely happens, particularly for small businesses), is usually punished by a civil penalty (i.e., a cash fine).
My comment was much too general and for that I apologize.
It all depends on which law or section of law specifically you end up breaking. A first offense for knowingly hiring an undocumented worker will be met with fines and the fines increase through the third offense. The government however has been increasingly using criminal penalties. Hiring more then ten will also much more often result in criminal penalties including prison time. Aiding and abetting, hiding from detection or encouraging aliens to enter the country is a felony unless I misunderstand the penalties in Title 8 and I know for a fact that's what one client we did an audit for is being charged with. Knowingly accepting fraudulent documents on the Form I-9 is punishable by up to five years in prison due to the certification statement in section two.
Detection rates of undocumented workers are mostly low due to employers not caring or not understanding what their requirements are under the law and lax enforcement by ICE/DHS. ICE however is stepping up investigations and just sent out another 1000 notices of intent to businesses of all sizes. We specialize in Form I-9 compliance and we constantly detect undocumented workers as part of that work. Companies that are enrolled in E-Verify are preventing many undocumented workers from even applying for jobs. Both the Senate and House are looking at bills that would make E-Verify mandatory for all employers which would make the detection rates a lot higher than they are now. Rumor has it that Senate Dems will kill these types of bills unless the Dream act passes but we'll see how long Reid can keep that up.
I think what may have thrown some people off is your usage of the word "scheme". For myself, it elicits more negative connotations and throws off the message somewhat without spending more brain cycles.
I see your point, and have updated it to say 'project' lest people get the wrong idea. I was rather upset by the sweeping declaration above that I was committing a felony, why I think should be deleted by the author since it's totally unfounded.
You and the idiots who voted me down still don't get it... and your edit changes nothing. You can't act as an agent of employment for someone you know is illegal.
"If anyone is interested in investing in a project to legally provide work opportunities for undocumented immigrants"
Your assumption about the point of this project is incorrect, and you don't seem like a person who's interested in having a polite conversation about this or any other subject.
In a nutshell, however, there are arguments that people who are brought to the US as children may have more legal rights than is commonly supposed by those who are unfamiliar with immigration law. You would agree, I hope, that if the law actually allows something and most people had simply failed to notice it did so, that it would be legal for people to take advantage of that. Given the complexity of immigration law and of the institutional structures surrounding it, it is not very surprising that loopholes abound and are often overlooked. However, using such a loophole may still require a willingness to go through several years of expensive litigation. Suing the government is not a trivial undertaking.
Did you see the bit where I said 'legally providing opportunities'? And the bit where I mentioned a law professor? And the bit where I mentioned political capital? I feel that these should be sufficient to assure you that I am not in fact promoting a criminal enterprise.
I find your comment offensive. EDIT: I see that you have added some context to clarify below. Likewise, I would like to clarify that this effort is intended to be wholly within the law, and the aim is to put legal resources in place for lobbying and/or litigation. I'm not mentioning the academic persons in question because it's a large effort that will probably take several years and which has not yet been presented for discussion in a law review or as a public proposal, and I don't want to misspeak about what stage the project is at.
I found your comment to be vague and I asked for clarification while citing a specific concern. The fact that you mentioned a law professor and political capital is mostly meaningless. Due to my employment I see all kinds of issues related to undocumented workers and all kinds of violations of immigration and employment law. Legally most undocumented workers have little to no options. A family petition if they are lucky, leaving the country and applying for re-entry if they aren't. That's an oversimplification, but not much.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification and the reason for being vague. I understand your intent much more clearly now.
The immigration laws in the US are completely and utterly broken. My parents immigrated here (legally) a few decades ago and eventually decide to become citizens through naturalization. As I was still a kid at the time I acquired citizenship by derivation. I have held and maintained a US passport since that date. However later in life when I enlisted in the U.S. Army my passport was not considered proof of citizenship (although Executive order 610 states it should be). Instead I was asked to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship as proof. I started the process only to find out it would take 4 years (due to backlog) before I should expect the certificate to be issues. If it takes 4 years for an existing citizen with a passport to get through the process what hope do actual immigrants have?
RandyHelzerman, everything you contribute to this site is quietly being made "dead". no one can see what you're saying unless they have the "show dead" feature enabled. in any case no one can vote on your contributions any more.
RandyHelzerman 7 hours ago | link [dead]
What really has to sink in is that there are at least 11 million people in this guy's situation. I can't think of a single example in history of 11 million people being forcibly removed from a country, and any analogous parallels are quite ominous. Fact:(1) they are staying here Fact:(2) there are real, tangible costs to them, you, and society as a whole for them to remain undocumented. Conclusion: There should be a path to citizenship for them.
No, it's because immigration issues are civil and thus not easily amenable to 8th amendment challenges. Although some kinds of immigration violations are criminal acts, they're not considered ongoing criminal events for judicial purposes.
Edit: IANAL. You want to be very wary of any blanket statements on immigration law in particular, which is more complicated than almost any other field besides tax law. Like, I can show you decisions where the Chief Justice of the Supreme court simply makes inaccurate statements about the law by mistake. And others that seem to contradict what I've said above (but where the contradiction is in dicta rather than being part of the holding).
Well, even if you leave, if you've been present illegally in the US for more than a year, you're subject to the lifetime bar. So, no, they really don't have a statute of limitations.
That's inaccurate. Illegal presence greater than 6 months and less than a year subjects a departing alien to a 3 year bar on re-entry absent a waiver. Illegal presence for longer than a year ups that to a 10 year bar. There are also lifetime bars on re-entry but they are reserved for much narrower and more egregious violations, like election fraud, aiding terrorism and so on.
You are correct, my recollection was faulty. However, the lifetime bar is not that narrow. It applies if you are present illegally for more than a year (or are ordered deported regardless of length of stay) and then leave and (attempt to) re-enter illegally again. So anyone long-term present in the country illegally who has ever left and come back would in principle be subject to this. That is at least my impression, but I'm only an immigrant, not an immigration lawyer...
How difficult is it really to have a green card wedding? The only knowledge I have of it is from TV, but surely in a country where a good chunk of the population doesn't take marriage seriously, finding someone to marry you for citizenship wouldn't be difficult.
You could even build a startup out of it... USMailOrderSpouses.com.
I have a friend who works in Canadian immigration as a marriage interviewer (i.e., that guy who interrogates you both, separately, to determine if yours is a green card marriage). According to him, it's very difficult to sneak past them - they've seen it all.
Hmm. Well I suppose you'd have to live together in order to pass that kind of exam, but you should be able to answer most of those questions after a few weeks. Odd though that a lot of those questions assume quite a bit of time has gone by.
I know you are joking, but it is not a good idea. I know some people who have done it successfully, but it is risky and can even lead to revocation of citizenship if it is discovered many years later. Operating a startup like this would result in a lengthy prison term if you were found inside the US, as in >20 years.
Residency is conditional the first 2 years of marriage. Both spouses need to go through interviews, appear they are a couple - have joint bank accounts, bills, live together, etc.
It's also not a given that somebody with no existing legal status will be granted residency even if legitimately married.
There is a lot of variability in what the USCIS actually checks. When my wife and I went for our interview the immigration officer only asked to see our wedding photos; since our parents and other family were present he decided it was legitimate (apparently most sham marriages are hidden from families). We had spent a lot of time assembling all the other recommended evidence but no one ever bothered to look at it.
I know you were being facetious, but they actually do a considerable background check when you marry a foreigner to ensure it's not a green card wedding. I think it's a felony if you stage it.
I think it is great that he wrote about his story. The way the law is written he'll have to leave the country unless someone pulls some major strings for him. I'm a little more surprised about everything that is included in the article however. Specifically the following bit:
By this time, Peter, who still works at The Post, had become part of management as the paper's director of newsroom training and professional development. One afternoon in late October, we walked a couple of blocks to Lafayette Square, across from the White House. Over some 20 minutes, sitting on a bench, I told him everything: the Social Security card, the driver's license, Pat and Rich, my family.
This indicates that Peter Perl was a manager at the Post and knowingly continued to employee an undocumented worker opening the Post and himself to liability including possible criminal penalties.
You assume that the employer is responsible for instantly firing any employee who is found to be undocumented. This isn't actually the case. When this happens, a legal process is set in motion -- even foreigners are permitted due process under US law.
I'd also be willing to bet that his employer will continue to employ the writer even if he's deported to the Philippines, and that may have been one of the things that informed his decision to write this piece.
The employee would have three days to bring in documents showing work eligibility. If after three days the employee couldn't do so the employer would no longer be able to offer any benefits (employment, health insurance etc). You can call USCIS if you want confirmation on that process.
In this case, the minimum patch to fix his situation (and that of those very similar to him) is probably to remove the 10 year ban requirement. Let him leave, reapply immediately as an O-1, etc., without prejudice, based on having come here as a minor, and/or having graduated from a US university.
While I'd like to see comprehensive immigration reform, I am always afraid of the perfect being the enemy of the good. There should be immediate incremental fixes to solve as many things as possible, vs. blocking everything on one perfect fix (which probably doesn't exist).
I think it's fairly widely accepted that the cost/benefit ratio of bringing in educated entrepreneurs freely is far better than unrestricted immigration. There may be non-economic reasons to support family reunification, asylum, or diversity, but the economic argument for letting entrepreneurs relocate to the US freely is slam-dunk; the argument for highly skilled workers being fast tracked to green cards and citizenship is comparatively strong too.
I've heard of quite a few speakers and musicians that were technically banned, Nelson Mandela comes to mind, but had so much overwhelming support from businesses and congress that ICE had no option but to overturn it. He's got a Pulitzer and a few bestselling books, I'm sure he can spin that into a proper visa.
wunderfool, everything you contribute to this site is being quietly made "dead".
here's your perfectly insightful and worthwhile comment which no one else can see unless they enable "show dead":
wunderfool 7 hours ago | link [dead]
legal immigrant (now citizen) here
immigration is a pain in the ass. we stood in line at the INS at 3am (back before they instituted appointments), and i'm not just talking tech people...i mean everyone, from all over the world and all walks of life. it sucked but we all did it.
we stood in lines and paid the fees and waited and followed the rules. if you don't, adios. i have zero, ZERO pity for everyone who has tried to come across as a charity case when they really just wanted to jump the line or not deal at all. to even get back in line i would assess a $10k fine on all of you, regardless of income or background.
-----
I am a legal immigrant and waited years to get my Greencard. The situation is so worse now for a new immigrant (h1b) from india (or china) it takes 7-10 years to get greencard and 5 more years to get citizenship.
The immigration system needs reform. We need a point based system like Canada and work permit for low skill farm jobs like that in the middle east/singapore. But this does not mean giving general amnesty to llegals. That will just encourage more to cross the border illegally.
I agree with the republicans - We need a strong border and a legal immigration reform.
Go wait in line, Vargas. You ain't special. You think because we should feel sorry for you, that you deserve a greencard or legalization or whatever? Do you know the shit LEGAL immigrants have to go through to get and stay here? What makes you so damn special to skip the fucking line? I waited 7 fucking years for my greencard - all the while working and paying more taxes than you and any goddamn teabagger alive. I was stuck in h1B hell as a modern day indentured servant. I actually gave up and decided to go back home. I decided that America wasn't a place where hardworkers who followed the rules could make it. I told myself that as soon as I finished grad school, which I was putting myself through part time, I was out of here. Fuck this. Then it happened. Some fucked up debacle in 2007 at immigration where the waiting lists all became "current" for a month. I yelled at the company lawyer to get my shit done and ran around getting all my docs. 90 days later, I had a greencard. Things changed. I could do shit. I applied to techstars in Boulder in 2008 with my idea for syncing browsing sessions between desktop and mobile (I got rejected - David Cohen told me it was too easy to knock off and too hard to make money. He was right. I couldn't execute anyway, and then instapaper showed up like a month later anyway).
You think I have sympathy for you, Vargas? I married my wife, who was on H1B while I was on Greencard. She got laid off. Were we permitted to live together as a family in the USA? Nope. Even though she'd been here close to 10 years herself - doing grad school and then working. Yes, legally, and paying taxes all the long. You would think America would try to make it easy for english speaking, educated (in the US, no less), LEGAL immigrants who waited in line. Nope. Our son was even born in America. Proof to all the stupid republicans and teabaggers that there's no such thing as "anchor babies", not like we gave a fuck about that. Kids can't sponsor their parents till 21 years of age. So my wife and son had to go to Canada, to live with my parents, while I sorted shit out. I'm sponsoring her - but the waiting list is fucking what, 4 years long?!! Ya, the short wait times for sponsoring a spouse only applied to citizens. I have to wait till sept 2012 before I can apply for that. Jesus christ. America rocks. So now my wife visits on a vistor visa, with our American son, good for only 3 months at a time. Each time she's interrogated for an hour when she crosses the border because of this fucked up situation (US immigration are supposed to keep out visitors who they think are trying to live in america). She's been warned to not push it and not to come back too often. This is fucked up. I'm ready to fucking give up if it wasn't for all the shit we've been through to get here. I've always got my eye on potential opportunities back in Canada or abroad. I've got a good gig here that I actually like, but fuck, is it worth all the hurdles and bool shit of being separated from family and crossing borders every other weekend? Just to be LEGAL? My wife could have stayed here illegally. But we're not like that. We followed the fucking law and basically got fucked. So screw off vargas. No tears for you.
Did I say I wanted him to suffer? No. I told him he has to wait his turn and that he ain't special. I think he should get a greencard. But after my wife does. And after everyone who's waited years legally for one - especially if they're paying taxes like us.
gdilla, by pointing Vargas to the end of the line you are shooting yourself in the foot.
You are imagining that if Vargas would get green card your wait time would be longer. It's not the case.
If it would be easier for illegal immigrants to get green cards, it would be even easier to make a compelling case for you and your wife.
Why do you think that number of granted green cards per year is a fixed amount? It's not. It can change any time when society is ready for that. Help the society to make that change.
There's a finite amount of bandwidth any society can spend on immigration, not an infinite amount (and hint: it's negligible).
At the moment, so-called liberals whatever reason are more concerned about ILLEGAL immigrants than legal immigrants.
Do you know how many legal immigrants' green cards got delayed the last time there was an amnesty program for illegals? Do you think the US govt. will hire more immigration dept. workers if illegals start getting legalized. They don't even hire people in the patent office! Every legal immigrant in the green card queue hopes that an amnesty program won't get passed until he/she gets the green card.
IMHO, there are practical reasons why gdilla is concerned about illegals getting preferential treatment.
Exactly. The bw issues are tremendous. How do you process 10m + illegals whose cases are all so varied, documentation are various levels of sketchy, while there are millions waiting in line LEGALLY, and somehow think 1) it's fair and 2) it's more efficient than now.
Maybe you've heard of something called time. That is a problem. If you think you can get it down to some kind of automated algorithm, good luck. Like I said, the input will be crap. Have fun proving Mr. Martinez is Mr. Martinez. People like us, who are waiting in line, have already provided the nec input. And paid up too. That's where you solve problems. Not by catering to the dudes at Home Depot who dont trust you, can't afford the fees, and have documentation you can understand if you're lukcy.
See my previous point. Patent cases pay for themselves too. But the federal govt. is so strapped for money that it takes money from these depts. And Congress is notorious for passing unfunded mandates. Unless you address specifics like this, I'm afraid what you are saying is just wishful thinking.
"Wishful thinking" is when you hope that government would process legal immigrants' cases faster if government spends some extra resources on prosecuting illegal immigrants.
I'm so very sorry to hear this story. It reminds me of another one about Indian engineers looking for brides back home - I heard on NPR a few years back. It was heart breaking to hear that the order of preference for the potential brides was citizen, h1b applying for green card, green card holders. You see, if you are on h1b your spouse can stay with you (but cannot work), and if you get a green card while already married, she gets one too. But, if you already have a green card, you are in worst possible case from family point of view, as explained above. It really, really sucks.
Organized left-wing drum beat for more in immigration. So, here we have a tear jerking story in the NYT. A few days ago we had Mayor Bloomberg touting immigration in DC. Then we had Fred Wilson giving support on his blog. Yesterday we had a finance guy in DC supporting immigration.
It's really courageous of him to come ahead with his story. I really hope he gets shipped back to the Philippines.
Go ahead and call me a xenophobe now. Whatev.
I think it is in poor form for the NYT to print this manipulative article that tries to make me feel bad for the gay, minority, do-gooder author and excuse his years of criminally fraudulent behavior.
Sure, call me heartless. But, this guy is cheating you, and not in the "Oh cool hack" kind of way. He is cheating you in a Bernie-Madoff-conned-me-out-of-my-money-for-ponzi-investments-so-that-he-could-live-a-cushy-life kind of way.
How and who is he cheating? You think he's not paying taxes? You think he's contributing to overloaded social services?
From what I can tell he's not working under table. (i.e. taxes are being withheld and paid on behalf of whatever social security number he's using.) And he obviously was unable to avail himself of college financial help due to his immigration status, so it seems pretty unlikely that he's able to be a drain on many other social programs.
What exactly has he conned you out of? He paid his taxes, he contributed to American society. It seems pretty clear that he put in more than he took. Who's losing by having him here?
How is he cheating me? His family "cut the line" in building a life in the US, one of the best nations to be in, in the eyes of many on this planet. His chances of winning a Pulitzer would be severely diminished if his family had stayed in the Philippines. So he cheated me by not being subject to the same US immigration rules as I and the rest of the world. He cheated the many other aspiring college students, journalism interns, journalists by occupying a spot each time he was employed or given the opportunity to advance with fake documents.
*His family* (...). His chances of (...) *if his family* (...)
He didn't cheat you into one damn thing. The opportunities that were given to him would not be given to you or "the next in line" had he not been here.
Part of what makes a wealthy nation, hum... wealthy, is the fact that it has enough resources to offer opportunities and services to the whole population. The US can give opportunities for you, him or any one that shows the necessary abilities.
I guess I'm looking at this situation as if he were someone whose parents faked his admission to MIT, somehow the papers slipped to the right places and he began enrolling, midway through college he learned about the faking, and then he still kept going, graduated magna/summa cum laude ("Pulitzer" - and yes I know MIT doesn't have latin recognitions), and now the truth is out. Even though he did not began college in a criminal way, in my opinion he ended it as such and all his super achievements don't justify keeping the facade.
Of course all that fails if, like you say, there would be no "next in line" because there is no "line", but somehow I think there is. I tend to think there are a finite number of schools, colleges, internships, and jobs. But that seems to be the core of our argument and I may need to change the way I view opportunities in nations.
Your 'lump of labor' logical fallacy contradicts the principle of 'the bottom line'. As a journalist, he is not creating work, but performing work assigned to him by a superior. His amount of available work to perform is limited.
What years of criminally fraudlent behavior? He was brought into the country at age 12. Legally, he wasn't even capable of committing fraud because he hadn't reached the age of criminal responsibility. You can't even hold someone under the age of 18 to a contract, which is why most companies require an adult co-signer for any minor who wants to enter into one.
But, he was not a minor or forced against his will when he decided to check the citizen box on the I-9, or when he decided to pursue a writing career in New York instead of Manilla, or every time he decided as an adult to stay in the USA while knowing he was here illegally.
I suppose if you suddenly were to find out that you were actually illegally present in the U.S., you'd be a good, law-abiding noncitizen and cheerfully go back to the country you don't know?
I'd dispute the "country you don't know" part. He keeps using the Filipino language. Having spent 12 years there, he isn't exactly a stranger. If, as a young 12-year old, he could adapt to the US (a country he _really_ didn't know), then why can't he, an educated and grown adult, adapt to the Philippines, a country where he grew up, whose language he speaks, and where he still has relatives (mom)??
This "country they don't know" falsehood is parroted by some people, and I find it very disingenuous. You don't have to lie to make your case. People immigrate to the US from other countries at all ages, and get along just fine. There's no reason that an American can't immigrate to his/her place of birth either. Growing up American doesn't make a person dumb, you know.
If a person's answer to this question is "no, I'd stay, even after I realize that I am breaking the laws of the country", I don't know how that person can expect sympathy after being busted (or "coming out").
I think it's totally fair to expect sympathy. I'm very sympathetic toward this guy, and as you can see from this HN thread, the majority of posters are as well.
Imagine you spent your whole life thinking you were part of Family A. But then, you discovered you weren't biologically part of Family A or actually adopted by Family A, instead Family A kidnapped you. Would you be inclined to stay with Family A, or would you seek out Family P - your biological family? Similarly, would you want to stay with Nation A or go seek out Nation P?
Do you disagree that nations are basically large families? Am I in the wrong to want to hypothetically seek out my biological family or nation of origin?
Or, do you disagree with my viewpoint and want me to shut up?
I didn't downvote you, but yes, I do disagree that nations are large families. And I think the analogy is flawed and attempts to emotionally twist the situation in favor of your conclusion.
Up until a few years ago I would have agreed with you. But, then I started studying genealogy and history and I had to revisit just what the definition of a nation is. Wikipedia states that a nation refers "... to a community of people who share a common territory and government; and who often share a common language, race, descent, and/or history." The USA is comprised of a community of people who, except for recent immigrants, are mostly distantly related. For example, 25% of USA citizens claim descent from the Pilgrims. Also, Obama and Cheney are eighth cousins. My personal ancestors have been here for nearly 400 years. USA citizens are distantly related. The same holds true, and probably more so, for other nations around the world.
Immigration is the official process of adoption into this large family. Illegal immigrants are masquerading as family members. Yeah, the situation sucks for this guy, but he has not gone through the official adoption process either. Instead, he wants us to think that it is cool that he has been knowingly stealing opportunities from legit members of the American family, and that gall, that cheating behavior, just doesn't sit right with me.
Instead, he wants us to think that it is cool that he has been knowingly stealing opportunities from legit members of the American family, and that gall, that cheating behavior, just doesn't sit right with me.
Sorry, dude, but I just can't have a productive discussion with you. This kind of xenophobic attitude is reprehensible in my opinion, and I just don't see either of us changing each others' minds.
Let's assume for a moment that he "stole" writing jobs from legal American citizens (or legal aliens). Let's also assume for the moment that the hiring processes for those jobs were concerned with finding the best candidate for the position.
I don't want a "real American" to fill that position. I want the best person for the job to fill that position. If a citizen/legal alien is actually the best person for the job, that's great. But if not: I don't care who it is, where he/she comes from, or what his/her immigration status is.
Maybe for a job like a newspaper/magazine writer, it isn't absolutely critical to have the best person possible in that job. But for other jobs it's certainly important, and regardless, I'm not willing to make that value judgement.
Most countries today _are_ based on ethnicities. They may not purely be of a particular ethnicity, but their basis is some ethnic grouping. There's a reason why all Germans speak German, and all Finns speak Finnish (to name a couple).
This is one of the things that's so great about America. It wasn't founded on an ethnicity; but an idea. But if you go to some of the other (more backward) countries, people still think of American as an ethnicity.
It's a not-insignificant marker of nationality for nations which have experienced diasporas. The citizenship laws of both Israel and the Republic of Ireland grant citizenship on a fairly liberal basis, based upon Jewish or Irish descent.
Pre 1940s Europe is a transnational jumble of overlapping ethnic groups. Result: war after war after war.
Post 40s and 50s after millions of people relocate to their linguistic and ethnic homelands and coalesce into new nations carved out of empires: lasting peace. Last major war was in former Yugoslavia, which failed to get with the ethnic nationalist program.
Hell, even Belgium is falling apart now. You are dead wrong on this. Ethnic nationalism is the only system that works, long term.
You conveniently left out the late 1930s and 1940s, in which a nation-state perpetuated ethnic war and genocide before being stopped primarily by two fairly transnational states.
Would you be interested in a summary of 20th century armed conflicts, classified by the type of states involved? There are a couple in Asia and Africa I'm thinking of.
That is illegal, I agree. But while I wouldn't do that, I don't feel able to condemn him for dealing with a situation not of his own making. The government does not offer any procedure for a person in his position to regularize their legal status (eg do XYZ and pay a fine in restitution, which will allow you to apply for permanent residency on the same basis as a new visitor). Absent a way to live legally, he has little other choice.
The immigration laws in this country were practically constructed to create this exact situation, and the same politicians who voted these draconian laws onto the books have persistently underfunded and frustrated the very systems designed to help enforce them, like entry-exit databases and the like.
"Absent a way to live legally, he has little other choice."
No he has a choice and he chooses to risk being busted and live in the land of opportunities. He can live legally. He can choose to go back to the native country of his parents and start a legal life there. He has graduated from a university in the US. He has done work in the US. He is much better off resume-wise than many of his peers.
That is irrelevant to the question of his legal relationship with the US government, which is the matter at issue. Sure, he could go to the Philippines, but that's essentially wishing the problem away.
There are a lot of people who are technically citizens of other places but who arrived in the US at such a young age that they have no memory of ever living abroad, and often don't even speak the language. Why should such people suddenly find themselves excluded from legal participation in the workforce when they reach adulthood? From a constitutional standpoint it's a very problematic question, because those persons are at a significant disadvantage without having broken any laws.
Although I disagree with you, I applaud you for your eloquence.
AFAIK, immigrants (whether legal or illegal) are in a gray area wrt constitutional protections. For example, on entry all aliens (including perm. residents) are fingerprinted whereas citizens are not. The lowly officer examining your papers can decide to not admit an alien into the country if you mouth off, and he's pretty much the final authority.
I seriously doubt any of things you describe are "problematic" from a constitutional point of view. It seems well-settled that aliens need not be treated the same as citizens.
Excuse me for following this up late, as I did not have time previously. The problematic aspect of this is that while an admitting officer has a great deal of discretion and someone excluded from entry to the US has little immediate recourse, a person who is already in the US has a somewhat different legal situation. Of course, how and when the person arrived affects that, but in the case of someone brought as an infant or small child (and thus, incapable of criminal responsibility at entry), it's legally rather difficult to say whether they have in fact broken any laws.
This raises some complex 14th amendment issues. In one sense, I'd like to see these clarified by the Supreme court. In another, I'm skeptical of the wisdom of doing so because Chief Justice roberts argued against equal treatment of illegal immigrant children in the Texas school system in a famous case called Plyler v. Doe (1982). He lost, and I have a hunch he is still a bit sore about it.
He has knowingly used fraud for years to get work, educational, and lifesytle opportunities that would have otherwise gone to people legally allowed to work, study, and reside here. Paying taxes or writing keen articles does not excuse this fact.
Hence, he is cheating[1].
[1] Wikipedia defines cheating as, "... the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation." That seems to be a accurate summary of the author's activities. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating.
If the game is 'get a job' and the competition is merit based. Then no, he didn't cheat, he kicked ass.
If the game is 'obtain the opportunity to get a job' then, yup he cheated.
Barriers to entry are sometimes needed, but if the only thing you did to get over that barrier was be born on the correct side of an imaginary line, well, that just doesn't impress me.
Really, american born citizens can't complain about this without sounding like entitled brats. 'I want to win despite my lack of ability.' No sympathy there.
Foreign born citizens that worked hard through the system to get citizenship have a little to be annoyed about, but really the only class of people who can really even say 'boo' to Jose are people who faced his situation and chose to leave and then worked their way back in. If that class of people exists then I would have just one question for them:
"Would you support the DREAM act?"
I really and truly have a hard time believing that they would say, "No."
"foreign born citizens that worked hard through the system to get citizenship have a little to be annoyed about"
I'm from this group and I am annoyed. Yes, it sucks that being born on the right side of an imaginary line determines many of your future opportunities. Agreed. Let's change that. Agreed.
But meanwhile, there can't be anarchy. Just because you think it's unfair, you (or your parents) can't go ahead and break the rules, fake to be citizen of a place that you are not, and after enough water has passed under the bridge, come out and expect for everything to be the same, just because you lived your life in a commendable way after that.
I think it's unfair and insulting that he got the opportunity to attend schools in the US, get to do internships in the US, while thousands of children from the Philippines were not smuggled across the border and have to cope with life without such opportunities. Who knows all the great people they might have become if they had started a life in the US.
Exactly. Paying taxes does not make the situation fair. All his life he has "filled a spot" of an opportunity that would have otherwise been available to someone else. His achievements ("the end") do not justify the means.
I was brought here as a kid 13 years ago. I'm 24 now. I also graduated from a "top" university -- like that matters. I guess my parents weren't smart enough to get a fake social security card for me back then, I wish they were. I've also been fighting for the Dream Act for what feels like an eternity. I made a site and still maintain it, have met with Senators, protested in front of the White House, several times, other things. I'm loosing hope. I lost hope in Congress long ago. I lost hope in this President in December, when he failed to stand by us and the vote. I don't have anything left to wait for.
I'm still "hiding," most of my friends have no idea, but I see less and less reason to do so every day. I just can't take it anymore. I'm worth _something_. I'm competent coder, and fuck it all, at least I got that, my mind, and my family.
Anybody who wants to debate the pros and cons of immigration reform can go to hell. I'm done reading the hate mail. I'm done debating. I am done listening to those masked bigots. I know what it is like to live like this having done nothing wrong. I know that I don't deserve the punishment. If we can't agree on the fact that I am American and should have basic rights, then we have nothing to talk about. I'm not asking for anything except recognition.
Btw, people who were brought here on fake documents, as me and Jose, can't get married for papers. So even if Jose wasn't gay, he wouldn't be able to adjust based on marriage. It's unfortunate that people who come here on student visas get married -- assuming they have enough money -- and have a green card in six months. People like me and Jose, homebred Americans if ya will, are forever tarnished with this inherited title. Hello, my name is "illegal immigrant." That's what I feel like every single day. Every morning in the shower, I utter the words "I am so fucking tired." And I am.