Or hey, maybe you were 2 years old when you arrived and have absolutely no memory of how you got here. My office even had a case a year or so ago of a guy who had absoluetly no idea he wasn’t born in the U.S. until he tried to apply for Social Security benefits after he retired and was unable to document his U.S. citizenship/immigration status. (It did work out for him in the end, though, via an older provision called registry.)
I think you guys are getting a bit beyond the scope of the thread, but the point of in-state tuition rates is to reflect the fact that state residents fund higher education via taxation already. Nicaraguan kid’s parents have paid some if not all California state taxes; Nevada kid’s parents haven’t.
The new deportation regulation only applies to the kid, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. If you think the kid is entitled to stay, you are presumably in favor of the new regulation.
For every undocumented worker who might be getting welfare, my guess is there are at least 100 undocumented workers paying taxes who will never be able to receive SS benefits or Medicare or any number of other benefits they are paying for none-the-less. That excess money will go to YOUR benefits.
If there are any at all. I’m not sure what his point is, since the citation made it clear that undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to collect welfare.
Assuming that’s true for a second you’re talking about a small percent of what they pay compared to the many benefits they get for just living here, some of which I mentioned.
Show me where I said anything about “welfare.”:rolleyes:
And, feel free to address the part where the illegal immigrant, now graduated from community college after previously completing 12 years of free education, is justified in competing for a job with my son–a citizen.
And, “undocumented” my ass. “Illegal.”
At least there’s a logic to it. But I contend that they already get more than pay in. Also, if a school receives federal dollars that shouldn’t be allowed to discount tuition for illegals. Or hell, have them attend the school in the first place.
I acknowledge that he is able to stay, I do not favor it. While I feel for the kid, the contorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment causes situations like this and incentivises people to do whatever they can to have a kid born on our soil.
May the best man win.
Why not?
We’re not talking about kids who are born here. Those kids are citizens and this proposed regulation doesn’t apply to them.
Sigh. Eva Luna, I wish we had consulted you in real life when all of this was going on. I can no longer remember why we thought it was necessary, but I do recall that our case was a mess from start to finish. I retract that objection to Obama’s plan, then.
ETA: It might have been the on-the-spot adjudication aspect, since that’s functionally what happened.
They don’t get care for free, any more than any other broke person. They get emergency care without regard for their ability to pay, and just like any other broke person, they get billed for it. Sure, the hospital will almost certainly have to write off the bill, but I don’t see why it makes a difference to you who is getting free care.
This one:
The opinion from the Kansas Court of Appeals came in the Barton County case involving convicted drug dealer Nicholas L. Martinez.
The ruling found that while the laws of the United States make it illegal to enter the United States without authorization, being in the United States after entering illegally is “not necessarily a crime.”
The trial court judge had ordered Martinez to jail on the grounds he is an illegal alien, the report said.
But the appeals court overturned that decision.
“[Federal law] declares an alien’s unsanctioned entry into the United States to be a crime. While Congress has criminalized illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported and has again entered this country illegally,” the court opinion said. “[Federal law] makes it a felony for an alien who has been deported to thereafter reenter the United States or at anytime thereafter be found in the United States.”
The court ruling explained that those entering the United States illegally are subject to deportation, which can be based on “any number of factors.”
Judge Patrick McAnany, who wrote the opinion: “However, while an illegal alien is subject to deportation, that person’s ongoing presence in the United States is and of itself is not a crime unless that person had been previously deported and regained illegal entry into this country,” the ruling, written by Judge Patrick McAnany, said."
What?!
Now if that isn’t some kind of perverted, twisted legal reasoning, I don’t know what is. “You committed an offense, but you haven’t been charged for it, and since Congress hasn’t explicitly stated that your offense is still an offense, then it’s not.”
Is it any wonder that immigration law is being ignored, since, once you’re here, you’re here?
What would it take…the Attorney General issuing a John Doe/Jane Roe warrant for anyone who had entered the country illegally? I don’t even know if that could be done. I know Holder would never do it. He’s got his own legal battles.
So, no, I wasn’t addressing executive privilege nor a SCOTUS ruling.
O visas can’t be adjudicated on the spot; the O petition has to be adjudicated by USCIS first, but once it’s approved, Canadian citizens are visa exempt and can apply for admission in O status on the spot with the approval notice for the petition. TNs are much less complicated.
Farmer Jane,
See if you can come up with anything that might fall under the umbrella of “social services” that isn’t welfare.
I’ll give you a minute.
Time’s up.
See where you went wrong there?
The court was applying the federal statute and controlling SCOTUS precedent. It’s not “perverted, twisted legal reasoning”; it’s the law. Do I really need to spell out the importance of specificity in criminal statutes? Do you want your state to be able to put you in jail for forgetting to, say, renew your vehicle registration?
I don’t understand why you’re referencing that case in the first place. Immigration law is the province of the federal government, not the states. A state court ruling on an immigration issue is not controlling precedent. However, that decision was in accordance with the federal law.
Executive privilege doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does, for the record.
I picked border states because of the obvious. Look at the budget problems California is in.
Hm. I don’t know what it was then. It was for a British citizen, and my understanding was that a US consular official in London had some decision-making powers over the length of time for the renewal, but I clearly had some misinformation to start with, so I’m not a reliable witness.
Yeah, what a bummer.
The Court upheld the law as written? How dare they!
And to think if it hadn’t been for your superb legal analysis, this gross miscarriage of justice may have gone undetected!
Clearly you and I have different interpretations of the word ‘welfare’.