Also so that Obama will be landslided back in in 2012 at which point he will cancel all future elections. Rush told me that on the radio today. Seriously.
No. A non-citizen can be in the US:
(1) On the visa waiver program, as a tourist from one of many countries.
(2) On a tourist visa.
(3) On a temporary employment visa.
(4) On a derivative visa as the spouse or child of a person on a temporary employment visa.
And there are many more, including student visas, and visas derivative of those: I’ve only listed the ways in which I, or members of my immediate family, have entered the US in the last 16 years or so.
Simple, every illegal immigrant who is granted legal status has to work for 2 years for the immigration department doing processing. In 5 years they’ll be caught up.
Just out of curiousity, do you think anyone “foreign looking” should be stopped to have their paperwork checked, or only those involved in political advocacy?
Visa waiver – up to 90 days
Tourist visa – the one I had, back before the visa waiver program, multiple entries over a five-year period.
Employment visa, and derivative visas for family – the one I had was for three years
Green card – mine is for 10 years
That’s going to be a huge shock to lots of Americans happily retired and living it up in Mexico and other parts of the world. This isn’t North Korea, you are not “stuck” anywhere.
Time to “wake the fuck up” that a U.S. citizen child cannot petition for a green card for his/her parents until he/she turns 21. Which is a rather long-term plan, to say the very least, especially given that parents of U.S. citizens are still subject to significant bars to immigrating legally if they have been unlawfully present in the U.S., even after the immediate relative petition is approved.
It is entirely possible for reasonable people to differ regarding what a reasonable U.S. immigration policy might look like, but I am really tired of the old “anchor baby” canard.
Sorry, Toots, but I knew that the kid had to be 21. That’s probably why I didn’t say otherwise. So, why don’t you wake the fuck up and pay attention to the words on the screen, ignoring the ones that aren’t there.
Knock off the swearing, would ya? And my name isn’t “toots,” as you well know. And the truth remains that having a baby in the U.S. isn’t a one-way ticket to citizenship, as you well know. So knock off the lies of omission; all they do is obfuscate the debate.
The labor market has many local variations. A couple of years ago, a client of my firm was hiring for seasonal nonagricultural laborers; they had several hundred open positions, and the only requirements were being able to lift 50 lbs. and passing a criminal background check.
We guided them through supervised recruitment (which is a torturous process whereby the Dept. of Labor in the state where the comany’s facilities are located - in this case, three states - tells you how much you need to pay workers, and where you are required to advertise. Applicants are funneled through the Dept. of Labor, and if you don’t hire someone who they deem a qualified applicant, you’d better have a good explanation.)
The jobs paid pretty well for unskilled labor, certainly well above minimum wage, and the worksites were along the Gulf Coast, in economically depressed areas that had been slammed by Katrina.
How many applicants did our client get for these several hundred decent-paying positions?
Two.
Sure, all Americans will do any job, especially if they can’t find anything else. NOT.
:dubious: You don’t really believe that. No matter what Congress does this year, not one person now in the U.S. illegally is going to get citizenship and voting rights by November, or even by 2012. Relatively few legal green-card residents will – the naturalization process is horribly backlogged.
A couple of years ago would have been at the high point of the Bush-era recovery.
The jobs were physical labor and were temporary.
There was this matter of the criminal background check.
Let’s revisit the statement:
“Sure, all Americans will do any job, especially if they can’t find anything else. NOT.”
It was at the top of the employment cycle, so most people could have, and probably had, found some other job by that point.
A big chunk of those still having difficulties finding jobs were surely persons with nontrivial past encounters with the law, who you were weeding out (or scaring away, same difference) by the criminal background check.
And then what you’re offering the relative handful of unemployed people with little to fear from the background check is a physically demanding but temporary job. Many of them wouldn’t be in the market for such a job even if it were permanent; the rest, in that labor market, might figure the payoff from staying put and looking for something of a longer-term nature was likely to be better.