Chicago Tribune --
President Obama is proposing to make it easier for illegal immigrants to apply for legal permanent residency if they have family members of American citizens.
Obama's proposal would shorten the time that families are separated while awaiting for the application process to be completed while applying for legal status under the current system, the applicant must first to leave the US to seek a legal visa however under the proposed change would claim time apart from a spouse, child or parent as an "extreme hardship"
After the new proposal is posted in the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to critique the change.
it seems like this president is doing everything he can to sellout America and bypass the rule of law to suit him.
But that's just my opinion... what's yours?
6 comments:
Your headline says "11 million illegal immigrants will qualify for waiver" but the article you link says :
"Immigration officials do not know how many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. would qualify for a waiver, Mayorkas said. Experts said that more than 1 million people could benefit from the changes."
Nowhere does it say that "11 million illegal immigrants will qualify for waiver"
If you care about being accurate you should change your headline.
Anon 7:54 "will" or "may" what difference does it make when you're looking at the big picture that we have a president that is trying to sell us out?
And besides dumb ass, Robin is not a professional reporter, she works very long hours and is dyslexic and does her best to bring up these issues. If you think you can do better, then go for it!
Hi Robin,
I sympathize re the long hours (and dyslexia) and, clearly, you're not a "dumb ass" :)
Regarding the post, my objection was not just the difference between "will" and "may" ( which I agree is a minor point ). It was the difference between "11 million" ( in your headline ) and "more than 1 million" ( in the article ).
I think a better headline would be:
"More than 1 million people may benefit from waiver".
( Which is pretty much the same as what the article says ).
Note that the article does not say "more than 1 million illegal immigrants could benefit". It says "more than 1 million people could benefit". That 1 million could include many people who are U.S. citizens. Children, spouses, even employers of illegal immigrants all could be included in the more than 1 million who could benefit from the policy change.
Anon: 11:19 thanks for the comments and standing up for me.
Anon:8:15 thank you for pointing that error out. It has been corrected.
Regarding the issue of the government trying and any underhanded means necessary to have illegal aliens come and stay in this country, I have to ask the question, "why?"
The excuse is "to keep families together."
And I can understand that, just like I can understand and appreciate the plight of children who were brought here by irresponsible parents who now have to face a life of looking over their shoulder for fear of being deported to a country in which they do not know.
That definitely is not fair to the children and yet the parents go unpunished for knowingly putting their children in that situation. Under any other circumstances, that would be considered child abuse.
But I digress...
The ONLY reason that I can think of why the government would really be pushing so hard to make these illegal immigrants LEGAL is the potential tax revenue that it would generate.
Conversely, some employers do not support the road to legality for these illegals simply because even if they pay the same wage to both legal and illegal employees, say for example $10 an hour... the employers cost for a "legal employee" is much higher when you consider all the employment taxes that go along with that employee.
I look at this issue like a technician would look at a malfunctioning machine. You can try and Band-Aid the machine while it's running, however you're not going to be able to affect repairs and correct the issue and tell you totally shut the machine off.
My point, until we can stop the influx from the borders and take away the carrot that attracts them, the problem in my opinion is only going to get worse.
Okay, I'm done rambling... my coffee starting to kick in and my 10 hour work break is just about up so it's time to go hit it again.
algún día, este es el lenguaje que todos vamos a estar hablando
Good story, thanks.
.
The news from yesterday's Christian Science Monitor (4/24/2012) is that net immigration from Mexico has stalled and my actually have reversed.
This suggests the possibility that one motivation for Obama's lenient policy towards illegal immigrants is that we run the risk of losing a source of cheap labor if we make it too uncomfortable for them.
You are probably right about tax revenue being another motivation for making illegal immigrants legal. You probably don't realize though that illegal immigrants already do pay significant income taxes - about 7 billion dollars per year - in the form of payroll check deductions. This number will go up when/if the payroll tax cuts end. ( In 2010 Congress & Obama cut payroll taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% ). This is described pretty well here in this Seattle Times article.
There's a lot of interesting information in that article but the line that most caught my attention is this :
Employers are obligated to ask for a Social Security number, but they don't have to confirm it is real.
Under this system, employers can legally hire illegal immigrants year after year and with a different, fake, Social Security number each year. This is not a new problem. The system has worked this way since 1986 when President Reagan signed the "Immigration Reform and Control Act" which gave amnesty to about half of the illegal immigrants living in the United States at the time.
I was amazed to find out that that law ( the "Immigration Reform and Control Act" ) was actually designed that way to reduce opposition from employers who wanted to hire illegal immigrants.
The obvious, simple, and cheap fix for this would be to require that employers confirm that Social Security numbers are valid as a precondition for hiring. The fact that we ( this "we" includes Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and 30 years of Republican and Democratic members of Congress ) have not pushed for such a change suggests that we as a society really don't want things to change.
Post a Comment