Jump to content

Menu

Temporary Protected Status


goldberry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Please keep this on topic and not partisan.  I've been reading more about this since it's been in the news, and am kind of shocked honestly.  

 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status

The Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to conditions in the country that temporarily prevent the country's nationals from returning safely, or in certain circumstances, where the country is unable to handle the return of its nationals adequately.  USCIS may grant TPS to eligible nationals of certain countries (or parts of countries), who are already in the United States.  Eligible individuals without nationality who last resided in the designated country may also be granted TPS.

The Secretary may designate a country for TPS due to the following temporary conditions in the country:

  • Ongoing armed conflict (such as civil war)
  • An environmental disaster (such as earthquake or hurricane), or an epidemic
  • Other extraordinary and temporary conditions

But it appears that there is no time limit on how long it can be extended.  For example, El Salvador has been listed in this category since 2001.  Those people have been here 17 years!  So when this category was introduced, no one planned for "what if a temporary condition becomes permanent, and at what time should it be considered permanent rather than temporary"?  How unbelievable thoughtless and cruel.  How can people be left hanging in limbo for 17 years or longer? During that time, they undoubtedly have had families, jobs, and put down roots.  Basically, what, there was no end game planned for those situations?  

 

I guess what I'm thinking is that something was wrong with the original regulations that would allow it to get to this point.  Sure "it was supposed to be temporary".  But to just keep renewing and renewing for YEARS without addressing that this was going to cause problems and need to be ultimately resolved, seems ridiculously clueless and lacking in compassion. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one example, of many issues, that are not dealt with in Washington DC.  It is much easier to "kick the can down the road" and let the people who follow you in office tackle the problem, if they have the interest to do so and the nerve to do so. 

 

ETA: It is also an example of poorly written laws or regulations that are ambiguous and open ended. What is the definition of "temporary"? How many years is that? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years?

Edited by Lanny
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is devastating for the community I lived and worked in for years.  But, I don't see how we can possibly have this conversation without it being political.  

 

It IS devastating.  It just seems that it was set up to fail from the beginning, like Lanny said, just pushing a problem down the road. This isn't about illegal immigration.  This is about people we let stay here legally, and now because of our own poor planning we are about to uproot their lives.  And their children's lives.  Where they came from originally doesn't really matter anymore if they have been here that long, and been here legally.    

 

The demographic shows they are working, have families, and own homes.  Another source said they have to submit to regular background and criminal record checks.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is devastating for the community I lived and worked in for years.  But, I don't see how we can possibly have this conversation without it being political.  

 

Really?  Why?

 

I have no political feeling about it. I just look at the human aspect of it, but I do understand other aspects as well.  I don't care what party anyone is in, and I am under the impression opinions vary within each party anyway.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer seems quite simple to me.  Welcome to America and feel free to get your citizenship whenever you're ready.

 

To anyone who perhaps didn't adjust well and has a criminal record, then it could indeed be time to return home, but the vast, vast majority sure don't fit that description.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer seems quite simple to me.  Welcome to America and feel free to get your citizenship whenever you're ready.

 

To anyone who perhaps didn't adjust well and has a criminal record, then it could indeed be time to return home, but the vast, vast majority sure don't fit that description.

 

I agree.  Why bother with the nonsense of temporary with no end date?  Really....you are going to let someone stay here for 17 years and then say...ok now leave?  That's just ridiculous.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have young friends who, because they were brought here as children under TPS, are now expected to leave, whereas if they had come illegally instead of legally, they'd be eligible for DACA.  These are people who, just like the young people served under DACA, have deep ties in the U.S..  All their education has been in English.  All their connections are in this country.  They've worked hard in school, they've crossed all their T's and dotted their I's and now they lose their documented status, because they came legally?  

I know other young people, U.S. citizens, young enough that they were born here while their parents were here under TPS, who will undoubtedly need to take on the burden of supporting and caring for their younger citizen siblings, because this decision threatens their parents' abilities to keep their job or stay in this country.

 

I feel that, in 17 years, when it was clear that the situation in El Salvador, a situation that U.S. policy created when we funded a devastating civil war there, wasn't improving enough to end the TPS, then the government had a duty to create a path to citizenship.  

 

Of course, all of that is political, though. 

Edited by Daria
  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't understand how suddenly depriving 190,000 U.S. Citizen children of their parents, and their parents income wouldn't be devastating?

 

I have young friends who, because they were brought here as children under TPS, are now expected to leave, whereas if they had come illegally instead of legally, they'd be eligible for DACA.  These are people who, just like the young people served under DACA, have deep ties in the U.S..  All their education has been in English.  All their connections are in this country.  They've worked hard in school, they've crossed all their T's and dotted their I's and now they lose their documented status, because they came legally?  

 

I know other young people, U.S. citizens, young enough that they were born here while their parents were here under TPS, who will undoubtedly need to take on the burden of supporting and caring for their younger citizen siblings, because this decision threatens their parents' abilities to keep their job or stay in this country.

I feel that, in 17 years, when it was clear that the situation in El Salvador, a situation that U.S. policy created when we funded a devastating civil war there, wasn't improving enough to end the TPS, then the government had a duty to create a path to citizenship.  

 

Of course, all of that is political, though. 

 

You got that from what I said?  Wow, I must have really screwed up what I meant.

 

I meant I believe we can easily discuss this without bringing politics into it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got that from what I said?  Wow, I must have really screwed up what I meant.

 

I meant I believe we can easily discuss this without bringing politics into it. 

 

Oh, I thought you meant

 

"Really your think that's devastating?  Why would that be devastating?"  Obviously you were replying to another sentence!

 

I'll go back and edit, sorry about that!

 

The decision to end TPS was made for political reasons, by a person holding political office.   One of the major reasons why going back to El Salvador would be so hard and scary for so many is because the U.S. used the country for political purposes and created a mess.  Any solution to this terrible situation would have to come through congress, which is controlled by a political party. I just don't see how we can discuss this non-politically.  It's a political issue.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought you meant

 

"Really your think that's devastating?  Why would that be devastating?"  Obviously you were replying to another sentence!

 

I'll go back and edit, sorry about that!

 

The decision to end TPS was made for political reasons, by a person holding political office.   One of the major reasons why going back to El Salvador would be so hard and scary for so many is because the U.S. used the country for political purposes and created a mess.  Any solution to this terrible situation would have to come through congress, which is controlled by a political party. I just don't see how we can discuss this non-politically.  It's a political issue.  

 

Oops. Really I'm sorry.  I truly didn't mean anything negative towards people in this situation.  I absolutely think it would be unfair to make them leave.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it's handled politically, but I don't think it has to be partisan.  This has gone on (the renewing over and over again) with various parties in power.  OF COURSE it was going to end badly.  Also, I think people on both sides have varying opinions about immigration in general, so it seems we could discuss this particular situation on it's merits.  I agree it's being used to make a political point right now, which I think is sad. 

 

I hate the way people tend to lump legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees/asylum seekers, and now TPS into the same category.  OF COURSE you are going to have different requirements for allowing someone to come work in this country for economic purposes than you are for someone you are helping for humanitarian reasons.  And, it's okay and even wise and compassionate to have BOTH.  But they are not the same.

 

Understanding these distinctions better is something that needs to happen in my opinion.

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear these stories of the individual humans trapped in impossible situations I am just sick to my stomach.

 

:iagree:  I have no idea how people can lack compassion.  The answer is incredibly simple to me and would have no political issue to it at all.  It's common sense and that should cross all political lines.  We're talking about humans - who have proven themselves at this point (or are kids and just plain caught up in the mess).

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the temporary part, I think the law does need flexibility. TPS was granted to Salvadorans after an earthquake, but it continued to be extended because other conditions in El Salvador were deteriorating. Extending it was reasonable (and I think it would be reasonable to continuing extending it).

 

There is also the problem that the Congress over many, many decades (so this isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t about one party) has been very unwilling to accept refugees who are fleeing gang violence or to grant asylum to such people. People fleeing other types of violence or persecution are able to enter as refugees or asylees, but Central Americans have very few options if they want to raise their families in a safe place. Page two in this pdf explains things nicely. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43716.pdf There really wasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t another option other than extending TPS if we wanted to help Central Americans. The Central American Minor program was started a few years ago, but it only allowed a tiny number of younger Central Americans to enter the US as refugees.

 

Even though TPS and asylees and refugees arenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t technically connected with each other, all of this overlaps to create a perfect storm where many Central Americans legitimately fear for their lives, but they cannot enter the US and now the very few who are already there will be required to leave.

 

However, there is precedence for allowing TPS recipients to adjust their status. Congress granted TPS in the early 90s to Central Americans, and then around 1997 allowed many of them to apply to become permanent residents. Sending TPS recipients home is not the only option, especially when TPS has gone on so long.

 

Edited to add since IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen people wonder elsewhere why TPS reciepients havenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t adjusted their status to something more permanent, TPS recipients have no legal path to citizenship. Even though they have been legally living and working in the US for the last 17 years (in the case of Salvadorans), they had no way to adjust their status. It wasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t safe to go home and it wasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible to get permanent residency in the US. They have been in limbo.

Edited by Amira
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can never understand that kind of short-sighted, drawn out policy.

 

I CAN understand different opinions re immigration with different priorities etc. However, I am not a fan of these delaying tactics (be they TPS, DACA, or anything like that). Something truly temporary (say less than a year) - okay. But as soon as it is apparent that it will take longer (and let's face it it almost always is longer) there should be a clear policy leading to a definite status (i.e. either out or a path to citizenship/permanent residency). And even if the issue was caused a long time ago - it now needs to be resolved in a merciful and just manner.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be delighted to see Congress pass a law that says TPS recipients can adjust their status to permanent resident if conditions in their country prevent them from returning after a year or two. It would be great if TPS werenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t the only tool the executive branch had available in these cases. Its temporary nature isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t good for anyone.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: I have no idea how people can lack compassion. The answer is incredibly simple to me and would have no political issue to it at all. It's common sense and that should cross all political lines. We're talking about humans - who have proven themselves at this point (or are kids and just plain caught up in the mess).

But sadly, most politicians do not think this way, as far as I can tell, because of the need to not rankle their base. So if oneĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s voting base has general antipathy towards El Salvadorians, it is not politically expedient to Ă¢â‚¬Å“letĂ¢â‚¬ them become citizens of the US.

 

Compassion does not appear to rank high as a value for current politicians in power. Sadly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a flight from Cali to Houston that stops in San Salvador.  I know someone who takes that flight to visit her daughter in Dallas.   My impression was that El Salvador is very dangerous (gangs, drugs, etc.).  However, we have a neighbor who travels frequently, to the USA and elsewhere here in the Americas.  As I recall, he believes El Salvador  is quite  safe, compared to some other Central American countries. As I write this, I can't remember which country he believes is the most dangerous one in Central America. We had that conversation some months ago.  I remember the conversation, but not the details...

 

There are so many different issues that the U.S. Congress just hasn't done anything about, for many years. It's easier not to tackle a tough problem, than to actually work on it and make decisions that may or may not be popular with your constituents or "PC".  That can range from TPS for Salvadorans, to DACA, to North Korea.  Kick the can down the road is the easiest thing for the Congress to do.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Salvador is currently one of the most dangerous countries in the world that isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t at war (although IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure war isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t an apt descriptor, since the government has no control over the gangs). Anyone returning there is at risk. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/central-america/el-salvador/64-el-salvadors-politics-perpetual-violence

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Salvador is currently one of the most dangerous countries in the world that isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t at war (although IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure war isnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t an apt descriptor, since the government has no control over the gangs). Anyone returning there is at risk. https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/central-america/el-salvador/64-el-salvadors-politics-perpetual-violence

 

 

Right,  What El Salvador is enduring amounts *functionally* to civil war.... and many of the roots of that conflict stem from decades of public policies in the US (both parties, there and here, federal and state, by design and by default).  People fled, and continue to flee, El Salvador for their lives as surely as from Syria.  

 

Functionally they are refugees, but US policy (with respect to UNHCR, which vets and makes eligibility decisions) has been to withhold that designation from people fleeing the conflict.

 

For 17 years TPS has been an inelegant back door that enabled Administrations of both parties to allow Salvadorans to come on executive authority, since Congress has been unable/unwilling to grapple head on with the simmering conflicts there (Guatemala & Honduras as well).

 

If DACA is passed legislatively (a big if), there is I think scope to have people brought in under TPS as children brought under that umbrella (goldberry's data link suggests there are ~68,000 people in that segment).  The logic is the same; the only difference is that they came through a legal channel.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a Salvadoran woman who had to leave the US a few months ago. She joined her family at age 17 in the US in 2002. Since she was 17, she didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t qualify for DACA (although current proposals would include 17-year-olds). Because she arrived in 2002, she didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t qualify for TPS. She wasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t deported earlier because of previous policies of prosecutorial discretion which allowed her to remain in the US since she has young children and no criminal record. Her permanent resident husband and US citizen children remain in the US because itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s simply not safe for them to live with their mother. Under current law, the soonest she will be able to live with her children in the US is in 2027.

 

We can do better.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear these stories of the individual humans trapped in impossible situations I am just sick to my stomach.

 

Me too.  And my DH is an immigrant (and not a US citizen).  Legal and permanent and all that, but ya never know.  I just cannot freaking imagine him having to leave.  That would be ridiculously bad.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, What El Salvador is enduring amounts *functionally* to civil war.... and many of the roots of that conflict stem from decades of public policies in the US (both parties, there and here, federal and state, by design and by default). People fled, and continue to flee, El Salvador for their lives as surely as from Syria.

 

Functionally they are refugees, but US policy (with respect to UNHCR, which vets and makes eligibility decisions) has been to withhold that designation from people fleeing the conflict.

 

For 17 years TPS has been an inelegant back door that enabled Administrations of both parties to allow Salvadorans to come on executive authority, since Congress has been unable/unwilling to grapple head on with the simmering conflicts there (Guatemala & Honduras as well).

 

If DACA is passed legislatively (a big if), there is I think scope to have people brought in under TPS as children brought under that umbrella (goldberry's data link suggests there are ~68,000 people in that segment). The logic is the same; the only difference is that they came through a legal channel.

The logic is the same, but the people I know who came via TPS as children and our now adults have been told that DACA does not apply to them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But sadly, most politicians do not think this way, as far as I can tell, because of the need to not rankle their base. So if oneĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s voting base has general antipathy towards El Salvadorians, it is not politically expedient to Ă¢â‚¬Å“letĂ¢â‚¬ them become citizens of the US.

 

Compassion does not appear to rank high as a value for current politicians in power. Sadly.

 

It's rare (not impossible) for those with significant money and/or power to have compassion.  That's not at all new.  It goes back to the earliest of times.  Many stories are told in the Bible along with several admonitions about it.  Part of the reason they (usually) got so wealthy (or kept their wealth) is the willingness to take it from their fellow man (and develop acceptable ways to do this).

 

We visited Boldt Castle in the St Lawrence River this past summer.  It'd been some time since I had been there and now they have a really nice museum talking about how Mr. Boldt built the place - charging his workers to stay on the island overnight while they built it for him.  Such a sweet (rich and powerful) man, no?  He can build castles bringing in very luxurious things, but must charge the minions working for him overnight lodging fees.  They're pretty much locked into the arrangement since they're on his own personal island - no bridge to return home or similar.  They'd have to use boats.  But I suppose they ought to be thankful Mr Wealthy gave them a job.

 

There's nothing new under the sun.  Compassionate people rarely get super rich (short of a quick windfall from something - book sale, invention, etc).  They help others along the way instead.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my kids went to school with a little boy, M, and I got to know his mother.  Apparently, the family was here on a couple-week vacation visiting mom's sister, and while they were here war broke out in their home country (not South America).  They could not go home, so had to move in with the sister and make do the best they could.  I assume they were here under TPS.  Can you imagine?  They left their whole lives behind for what they thought was a couple of weeks, then all of a sudden had to figure out a life here.  The two kids were very young when they came; one may even have been born here.  They went to the local public school, and the family generally became part of the local community as best they could.  The kids were young enough that they likely had no memory of their home country.  I agree that TPS should include a path to at minimum a green card after a certain amount of time.

 

The DACA recipients also don't have a path to a green card or citizenship; something which I think the media has not done a good job of explaining.  I hear so many people say things like "if they wanted to stay they should have applied for citizenship" - but of course they can't.

 

I am also pro-chain migration.  Families are the core of our social fabric - the basic building block of society.  People with strong family support have a foundation that helps them be successful.  I am particularly baffled as to why some folks are pro-family-values, but anti-chain-migration.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re DACA eligibility for people coming in under TPS as children:

The logic is the same, but the people I know who came via TPS as children and our now adults have been told that DACA does not apply to them.

 

 

Sorry, I was not clear.  I know they are not currently eligible.  So long as they were TPS, they did not need to be eligible for DACA, since they had TPS status.  I'm (somewhat) optimistic that if DACA is codified into legislation (as opposed to EO), a path for the TPS kids can ultimately be found there, since the logic is the same but for the difference that door they came in through, being a legal one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too.  And my DH is an immigrant (and not a US citizen).  Legal and permanent and all that, but ya never know.  I just cannot freaking imagine him having to leave.  That would be ridiculously bad.

Ditto. It makes me think of the "First they came for the..." poem. The often touted anti-immigration slogan of "They're taking American jobs!" can be applied to him, even though his job supports 4 American citizens.

 

The utter lack of compassion America as an institution seems to be showing these people who came here to escape hellish situations (some of OUR OWN MAKING) is baffling to me.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a flight from Cali to Houston that stops in San Salvador.  I know someone who takes that flight to visit her daughter in Dallas.   My impression was that El Salvador is very dangerous (gangs, drugs, etc.).  However, we have a neighbor who travels frequently, to the USA and elsewhere here in the Americas.  As I recall, he believes El Salvador  is quite  safe, compared to some other Central American countries. As I write this, I can't remember which country he believes is the most dangerous one in Central America. We had that conversation some months ago.  I remember the conversation, but not the details...

 

People who live in Chicago have told me Chicago is safe, yet statistics don't bear that out.  Back when DC was having lots and lots of murders, the city didn't bother me at all because I went there all the time.  The thing is, if you are familiar with a place, you tend to know where to go and where not to go.  Overall, though, El Salvador is simply not a safe place to live.  Just because one person, who goes through one airport there regularly, thinks it's safer than other places, doesn't make it so overall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who live in Chicago have told me Chicago is safe, yet statistics don't bear that out. Back when DC was having lots and lots of murders, the city didn't bother me at all because I went there all the time. The thing is, if you are familiar with a place, you tend to know where to go and where not to go. Overall, though, El Salvador is simply not a safe place to live. Just because one person, who goes through one airport there regularly, thinks it's safer than other places, doesn't make it so overall.

Chicago was mentioned by some politician the other day.....to defend his desire to deport TPS children.....'Chicago is dangerous, should we just move all of the citizens to another country'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though TPS and asylees and refugees arenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t technically connected with each other, all of this overlaps to create a perfect storm where many Central Americans legitimately fear for their lives, but they cannot enter the US and now the very few who are already there will be required to leave.

 

However, there is precedence for allowing TPS recipients to adjust their status. Congress granted TPS in the early 90s to Central Americans, and then around 1997 allowed many of them to apply to become permanent residents. Sending TPS recipients home is not the only option, especially when TPS has gone on so long.

 

Edited to add since IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ve seen people wonder elsewhere why TPS reciepients havenĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t adjusted their status to something more permanent, TPS recipients have no legal path to citizenship. Even though they have been legally living and working in the US for the last 17 years (in the case of Salvadorans), they had no way to adjust their status. It wasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t safe to go home and it wasnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t possible to get permanent residency in the US. They have been in limbo.

 

Amira, thank you for sharing your knowledge on this subject.

 

Right,  What El Salvador is enduring amounts *functionally* to civil war.... and many of the roots of that conflict stem from decades of public policies in the US (both parties, there and here, federal and state, by design and by default).  People fled, and continue to flee, El Salvador for their lives as surely as from Syria.  

 

Functionally they are refugees, but US policy (with respect to UNHCR, which vets and makes eligibility decisions) has been to withhold that designation from people fleeing the conflict.

 

For 17 years TPS has been an inelegant back door that enabled Administrations of both parties to allow Salvadorans to come on executive authority, since Congress has been unable/unwilling to grapple head on with the simmering conflicts there (Guatemala & Honduras as well).

 

 

Yes, this is the truth, and now families are going to be torn apart as a consequence.  People can argue that we should or shouldn't let people in from these countries due to gang/drug violence.  But with THIS group of people, we are past that point and now it needs to be dealt with compassionately.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago was mentioned by some politician the other day.....to defend his desire to deport TPS children.....'Chicago is dangerous, should we just move all of the citizens to another country'.

 

This is a deflection because we already DID let these people stay here.  They have been here long enough that they are contributing members of society now.  Destroying lives just to make a point is not the answer.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my kids went to school with a little boy, M, and I got to know his mother.  Apparently, the family was here on a couple-week vacation visiting mom's sister, and while they were here war broke out in their home country (not South America).  They could not go home, so had to move in with the sister and make do the best they could.  I assume they were here under TPS.  Can you imagine?  They left their whole lives behind for what they thought was a couple of weeks, then all of a sudden had to figure out a life here.  The two kids were very young when they came; one may even have been born here.  They went to the local public school, and the family generally became part of the local community as best they could.  The kids were young enough that they likely had no memory of their home country.  I agree that TPS should include a path to at minimum a green card after a certain amount of time.

 

The DACA recipients also don't have a path to a green card or citizenship; something which I think the media has not done a good job of explaining.  I hear so many people say things like "if they wanted to stay they should have applied for citizenship" - but of course they can't.

 

I am also pro-chain migration.  Families are the core of our social fabric - the basic building block of society.  People with strong family support have a foundation that helps them be successful.  I am particularly baffled as to why some folks are pro-family-values, but anti-chain-migration.

 

What a horrible situation...  I can't even imagine.

 

I've been reading more on chain migration also.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/chain-migration-immigration-daca-factcheck.html

 

An interesting note from that article is that some politicians estimating the amount of new foreign citizens coming in from chain migration are including the American born children of those people.  Those children are just flat out American citizens.  If they don't like that part, they need to change birthright citizenship.  It's not a chain migration issue.  Of course people are going to keep getting married and having babies wherever they are.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a deflection because we already DID let these people stay here. They have been here long enough that they are contributing members of society now. Destroying lives just to make a point is not the answer.

It seemed worse than a deflection to me. but it definitely showed a lack of compassion. (Oh lots of people have it bad)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a horrible situation... I can't even imagine.

 

I've been reading more on chain migration also.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/chain-migration-immigration-daca-factcheck.html

 

An interesting note from that article is that some politicians estimating the amount of new foreign citizens coming in from chain migration are including the American born children of those people. Those children are just flat out American citizens. If they don't like that part, they need to change birthright citizenship. It's not a chain migration issue. Of course people are going to keep getting married and having babies wherever they are.

One thing I can't wrap my mind around....when you have illegals who now have American citizen children....are they going to kick the illegal out and allow the child to,stay? Is there a plan for getting enough foster parents to care for these orphaned American citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a horrible situation...  I can't even imagine.

 

I've been reading more on chain migration also.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/us/politics/chain-migration-immigration-daca-factcheck.html

 

An interesting note from that article is that some politicians estimating the amount of new foreign citizens coming in from chain migration are including the American born children of those people.  Those children are just flat out American citizens.  If they don't like that part, they need to change birthright citizenship.  It's not a chain migration issue.  Of course people are going to keep getting married and having babies wherever they are.

 

 

There is already a bill in the House to limit birthright citizenship.  It has 42 sponsors.  If passed, it would create a segment of people living in America who are stateless, since not all countries grant citizenship to children born out of country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I can't wrap my mind around....when you have illegals who now have American citizen children....are they going to kick the illegal out and allow the child to,stay? Is there a plan for getting enough foster parents to care for these orphaned American citizens?

 

The idea is that the whole family goes, and the kids can come back when they are old enough.  

 

But you can see why families that left because of the gang and drug violence especially don't want to take their kids back to that.

Edited by goldberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a deflection because we already DID let these people stay here.  They have been here long enough that they are contributing members of society now.  Destroying lives just to make a point is not the answer.

Yup.  The problem we have gotten into is the people have been here - this has been HOME - for nearly two decades.  They've gotten married, had children, bought houses, started business, gotten jobs... things everyone does over the course of 17 years.  It is just as dumb to kick people who live in Chicago out of Chicago as it is to kick people out of the US after letting them stay here for what appeared to be indefinitely.  But we do know exactly where people with TPS are so it does make it a bit easier to force them to leave.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how it is determined what people in a country deemed TPS come here? Is it random, like, Ă¢â‚¬Å“the first 10,000 people to pass screening can comeĂ¢â‚¬? Do they obtain social benefits when they arrive, as refugees do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how it is determined what people in a country deemed TPS come here? Is it random, like, Ă¢â‚¬Å“the first 10,000 people to pass screening can comeĂ¢â‚¬? Do they obtain social benefits when they arrive, as refugees do?

 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status

 

You might want to look into what federal benefits refugees get as well (including how quickly they have to pay back the LOAN we give them in order to come here; benefits they are eligible for vary by STATE).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how it is determined what people in a country deemed TPS come here? Is it random, like, Ă¢â‚¬Å“the first 10,000 people to pass screening can comeĂ¢â‚¬? Do they obtain social benefits when they arrive, as refugees do?

TPS is granted to an existing population in the US. In the case of Salvadorans, TPS was granted in to people who were already in the US in 2001, based on the earthquake that year. Anyone who arrived after the cutoff date in 2001 didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get TPS (so in the story I posted above, the 17yoĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s 2002 arrival precluded her from getting TPS). That protected status was extended for that population until now, but only for that population. ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not a way to enter the US, but to stay after arriving undocumented. (ETA that not all TPS recipients entered undocumented and some qualify for other types of legal status. It covers a wide variety of people in different situations. Also, TPS recipients often donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get public benefits, but it depends. They usually can work though.)

Edited by Amira
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TPS is granted to an existing population in the US. In the case of Salvadorans, TPS was granted in to people who were already in the US in 2001, based on the earthquake that year. Anyone who arrived after the cutoff date in 2001 didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get TPS (so in the story I posted above, the 17yoĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s 2002 arrival precluded her from getting TPS). That protected status was extended for that population until now, but only for that population. ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s not a way to enter the US, but to stay after arriving undocumented. (ETA that not all TPS recipients entered undocumented and some qualify for other types of legal status. It covers a wide variety of people in different situations. Also, TPS recipients often donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get public benefits, but it depends. They usually can work though.)

Thank you. That changes my view of the situation some, though.

 

I thought it was more like refugee settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...