Temporary Protected Status

[Pam in CT]

For me, the debate over the word "orphan" is a distraction.

 

Parents don't WANT to be separated from their kids; they do not make that choice if there's a better one to be had.  

 

During WWII, Jewish parents who could not get visas to escape life-threatening danger put their kids on kindertransports and sent them off to strangers because they had no better alternative.  Children, then, were deemed less undesirable than grown Jews.  Many were raised Christian.  A few were ultimately reunited with their birth families, most not.  Were those kids "orphans" the moment they first got on the trains?  At some later point when contact with their parents was lost?  At some unknown point when their parents disappeared into the chambers?  Is that the moral point?

 

 

Today, to apply the semantics of "orphans" in the same direction: Salvadoran mothers put 12 and 13 year old daughters on buses headed for La Bestia to the border, to escape gang members who've identified them as "girlfriends," which is typically a 3-5 year coerced relationship before they are discarded and killed.  The mothers hustle to find birth control implants for the girls because they know full well they will be raped all the way through the journey.  If they are lucky the youngsters will turn themselves in for incarceration at the border, where they still will risk assault by corrupt American officials.  A very, very tiny percentage will be released to relatives living here; most will be put on buses and sent "back."  Where both they, and their relatives Left Behind, are at chronic risk of retaliatory murder.  Do these girls "count" as "orphans"?  Truly, that hardly seems the salient point.

 

No one does this if there is any other option at all.

 

 

The issue Americans need to grapple with is the reality of the violence among our neighbors and how our own policies fuel it and arm it.  All else is fiddling while Rome burns.  Upwind of us.

[ktgrok]

 What I do not want in my country is anti=female, anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual, anti- so many other things people coming here. 

 

What's funny is plenty of people would hold those up at American Values at their best. nothing to do with immigration, plenty of home grown people fit that perfectly. 

[Amira]

I am completely against chain migration, except for immediate family. I am for doing exactly the same kind of immigration that my parents went through, and most countries have. We take people who can be expected to make a positive contribution to our society and who are interested in coming to a country with lots of freedom. I am really, really uninterested in getting people here who do not agree with our freedoms and our rule of law.

 

But as for our immigration policy being draconian or something like that, that is completely false. Most countries have much stricter rules than us. As a discussion on this board explained a year or so ago, Canada doesn't allow deaf immigrants or immigrants with many other disabilities- our country has no such policy at all and in fact, many adopted children here come with disabilities, The Australians have commented on their very strict immigration issues too with them holding refugees on some outer island. With regards to criminal behavior by either immigrants or visitors, most countries follow the same rules that we do- they are not welcome. When we were overseas for three years in a Western European country, we well knew that doing any type of criminality would result in immediate expulsion. It happened to one American family while we were there. And tying this into the above chain migration and visa lottery stuff, we can watch what has happened in Western Europe with generous immigration policies that resulted in lots of people who do not want to follow the way of life of the host country. Suburbs of Paris, many areas around Brussels, areas of Sweden, etc, etc, are basically no go zones filled with immigrants who do not want to assimilate and cause gigantic crime problems and terrorism. No, the problems aren't necessarily just immigrant problems because I know that France, for example, didn't make it very easy to get out of the Banlieus, but people there still had some choices. What I do not want in my country is anti=female, anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual, anti- so many other things people coming here. I would welcome people of any religion here who are tired of living in autocratic societies that do not allow freedom of religion. But if the people do not value our societal views of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of association, etc,. I do not want them here.

There are some inaccurate statements here. Family reunification allows citizens to apply for immediate family members to get permanent residence in the US (parents, spouse, children, siblings) or to get a visa for a fiancée and that person’s children. It sounds like this fits with your goals already. Permanent residents can only apply for a spouse and unmarried children under age 21.

 

As for your statements about no-go zones, there is plenty of information out there disputing that. The ambassador to the Netherlands just had to retract statements to that effect. There is also plenty of data that shows that non-citizens commit crimes in the US at a lower rate than citizens.

 

How would you go about determining if a person had correct attitudes?

Edited January 16, 2018 by Amira

[goldberry]

I am completely against chain migration, except for immediate family. 

 

Right now, according to my understanding, only immediate family (father, mother, children) are allowed regardless of numbers.  Extended family (siblings, aunts, uncles, etc) are subject to strict limitations of only a certain amount per year.  Someone can correct me if that's not true.

 

I have heard some recommendations that "nuclear family" be redefined to exclude parents and adult children.  I don't see that as solving any big problem, and rather being counter-productive.  Parents could play a significant role in success here, providing childcare and other support.  Adult children are more like to be income-producing.

[goldberry]

What's funny is plenty of people would hold those up at American Values at their best. nothing to do with immigration, plenty of home grown people fit that perfectly. 

 

 

How would you go about determining if a person had correct attitudes?

 

Yes, unfortunately those attitudes are not confined to any one race, religion, or ethnicity.  There are plenty of white, Christian people already living here that are anti-homosexual and anti-female.  I assume there are also in Europe, etc...even Norway! ;)

 

So would that be part of a questionnaire or something, and if so, what would keep people from lying about it?  

 

Editing to add, I would have no problem requiring immigrants to affirm that they will abide by and respect the existing laws and legal system of the United States.  I just don't know how much good that would really do.

Edited January 16, 2018 by goldberry

[creekland]

No. I cannot do anything about injustices of the past. Of course it was wrong to destroy the people groups who were here when my ancestors arrived, but that cannot be changed now. I couldn’t go anywhere else anyway because I am a mutt of several different countries and NA.

 

I comply with many laws that I think are stupid and not how it should be done. Property taxes, for example. I do not simply follow a law or not because I think it makes sense and is just how it ought to be.

 

I completely agree that some people in power are using the law to try to purge undesirable groups from this country. It would fit the narrative, for sure. But just because some people are using the law to do nefarious deeds does not mean there should be no law or that there is no standard for things to take place. I do not think there are any first world countries where a person can just arrive there and become a citizen, no matter why they left their original country. There are laws for them all. There is no reason the US should be a free-for-all.

 

I have more to say but I have a mountain of work to do and a kid that keeps asking me questions, as homescho9lers are wont to do.

 

When you have more time, I'd love to hear how those with TPS are able to go back in time and fix the injustices of the past causing them to be here in the first place.

 

Whether one complies with property tax laws (or oodles of others) is nowhere near the same league as this one.  Those don't involve human lives.  This does.  This is far more similar to deciding to return the Jews to WWII Germany.

 

We aren't discussing free immigration in this thread.  We're discussing TPS folks.  One will find there aren't a whole lot of folks who want to change countries when they are safe and can earn a living in the one they've grown up in anyway.  Undoubtedly there are some (similar to us opting to want to live elsewhere soon due to wanting other things in our lives - like weather and BIG water, etc), but it's not the majority.

 

The FACT is something COULD be done now about these folks.  Nothing is written in stone or the history books.  If enough people speak up and/or learn what is really going on and opt to CARE, perhaps history will be different for them.  New laws could be written.

 

I need to put on my old boots and head out to the chicken coop (reference to growing up poor thread), so like you, will be back sometime later.  ;)

[SKL]

I am guessing they are not choosing to go to countries that are overrun with violence and poverty or other disasters.

 

Actually Central America is a lot better on most objective scales than some of their countries, but they have their reasons for going back.  Or for others, they accept that they have no legal choice to go back, and they have no interest in breaking the law.  Don't assume it's an easy decision for anyone in a situation of changing where they live.

 

[SKL]

And I see it totally differently.  The only reason these folks came here illegally is because there WAS no legal route and they legitimately feared for their lives, in many cases due to the US disrupting their country.  If I were in a situation where I feared for my kids' lives and/or my own, you bet I'd be doing whatever I could and not caring about laws of man.  (This could even be speeding or jaywalking or whatever.)

 

I know the exact same thing that happened to them could have happened to me had I been in their spot in the birth lottery or if history had been slightly different.  I can't fault folks who choose to do exactly what I would have done in their situation.  My brain can never embrace the attitude of "I've got mine - sucks to be them."  I've met IRL too many refugees and undocumented immigrants.  They are often wonderful people who were just unlucky with the birth lottery. They are no less human I am.  They have similar hopes and aspirations for life and their kids.  I can't turn my back on them.  The few who aren't, fine, do whatever, but don't lump all of us homeschoolers in with the wackos and don't do the same with any sort of immigrant.

 

SKL likes to think they should have "just gotten in line."  Um, there was and is no line to get into, except for some who married a citizen or similar.  Plenty of people think that who know nothing of the actual situation.

 

The actual fact is that most of them have not come here because they feared for their lives in their home countries.  That is a fallacy.  Yes the US government did acknowledge that when war broke out or similar, it was right to let them stay until things settled down over there, but that was not and is not the reason most of them were / are here in the first place. 

 

I know more than most about legal immigration to the US.  I know a number of people who did legally immigrate from those countries so it is simply untrue that there was and is no line to get into etc.  There's a legal process, and people who choose to follow the legal process are at a disadvantage because of rhetoric.

[SKL]

But they are separated from them.  That was another definition.  

 

And I was not talking about kids whose parents were able to make arrangements.  

 

I would assume that pretty close to 100% of these parents would either take their kids with them or "make arrangements." 

 

As a fine point, kids who are relinquished for adoption are considered orphans though technically they still have a living parent and are not abandoned.  But they cease to be "orphans" once adopted.

 

I would not consider the children of deported immigrants "orphans" unless they were actually left friendless and alone.

[creekland]

The actual fact is that most of them have not come here because they feared for their lives in their home countries.  That is a fallacy.  Yes the US government did acknowledge that when war broke out or similar, it was right to let them stay until things settled down over there, but that was not and is not the reason most of them were / are here in the first place. 

 

I know more than most about legal immigration to the US.  I know a number of people who did legally immigrate from those countries so it is simply untrue that there was and is no line to get into etc.  There's a legal process, and people who choose to follow the legal process are at a disadvantage because of rhetoric.

 

Between my IRL experiences and what I see posted by someone I don't know on the internet, I'll take my IRL experiences (and facts reported) any day.

 

FWIW, have things "settled down over there?"

 

My educated guess if you've know folks who have legally immigrated from "those countries," is that money, marriage/relatives, or (high rated) job capability were involved.  It can happen, but not for the "regular" masses.

[SKL]

Between my IRL experiences and what I see posted by someone I don't know on the internet, I'll take my IRL experiences (and facts reported) any day.

.

 

Same here.

 

[creekland]

Same here.

 

 

Answer my other question about whether things have improved in those countries.  A quick google search makes me think they haven't.  El Salvador has the highest rate of homicide and has oodles of gang violence.  Honduras is right behind them.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

 

Do your facts show something else?

 

What features helped those you know who legally immigrated from these countries - or can you post a site showing where average masses can get in line (and could in those days)?  Back up what you say.

[bibiche]

Re  "Why Don't They Just 'Get in Line'?"

spoiler: there isn't one

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/whydonttheycomeherelegally.cfm

[TravelingChris]

I am for the proposed rule of no adult children or greatly limiting adult children.  Parents, the problem is social spending,.And just like every other country- we are not interested in having people come here who will be a drain on society.  I am not saying that every parent would be- I am merely stating what the thought here is.  The adult children issue has to do with terrorism and in order not to be discriminatory, the easiest thing to do is say no adult children. Again, I am just stating facts about what the thinking is.

 

As to 'no-go' areas in certain European cities and suburbs, I should have put quotation marks.  Of course, they are not really no one can go to places.  My family has been to some of those places just like we have been to very dangerous parts of Chicago and other cities.  But there are dangerous areas in those European cities where the immigrants have settled- not all cities, not all countries have these areas. And the terrorists who did the Paris shootings and Belgian airport and train bombings came from those areas.

 

As to anti-female, anti -gay, etc people already here- I know they are. The terrorist who shot up the Pulse nightclub was a US born citizen. I certainly don't want to add to the violent people we already have.  And as to how do we find out about these attitudes- well one way they do it is looking through their phones and computers. Is that foolproof- absolutely not.  After all, a smart terrorist would not have such items on their computer or laptop.  A smarter terrorist organization would try to recruit not traditional members for  their group to carry out missions and do that,  And if anyone wants to talk to me about deaths from terrorism versus deaths from other causes, I do know the statistics.  But terrorism\s goals are not simply to kill a lot of people- they are to disrupt society and terrorize people.  9/11 has cost us a whole lot more than just all the horrific numbers of deaths caused directly or indirectly (first responders now dying from lung issues), just look how much money we spent on hardening buildings, wars, extra security at airports, etc. etc.

[TravelingChris]

The TPP issue with El Salvador and Haiti aren't likely to be terrorist issues anyway.  Though terrorist organizations like Hezbollah have extensive roots spreading in South America so no particular continent is free from terrorist issues (except I guess Antartica) but again probably not a big issue with the TPP people.  I think the biggest issue is the fairness one since as SKL has said, there are El Salvadorans and Haitians who are getting in through legal permanent means and ones who are waiting to come in legally too.

[justasque]

...

I honestly also believe that temporary status for 20 years, etc. is heartless. The deal is that Congress has the power to write a law and change this.  They could let them apply for green cards or DACA (which is their responsibility) or whatever.  ...

 

Just to clarify - like people with TPS, there is basically no path to citizenship for DACA recipients either.

 

...I know a number of people who did legally immigrate from those countries so it is simply untrue that there was and is no line to get into etc.  There's a legal process, and people who choose to follow the legal process are at a disadvantage because of rhetoric.

 

It's complicated.  Just because there is a path for people to legally immigrate from, for example Mexico or El Salvador, does not mean that people who are already in this country with TPS or DACA status can use that path.  In fact, generally speaking, they can't.  That's the problem, otherwise they would have already done so.

[Lanny]

Just to clarify - like people with TPS, there is basically no path to citizenship for DACA recipients either.

 

 

It's complicated.  Just because there is a path for people to legally immigrate from, for example Mexico or El Salvador, does not mean that people who are already in this country with TPS or DACA status can use that path.  In fact, generally speaking, they can't.  That's the problem, otherwise they would have already done so.

 

I believe that generally, one must apply, from the country of their citizenship, for a Residency Visa for the USA.  Possibly, if they are a legal permanent resident of another country, they can apply from there?  The main point is that I believe it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone to apply for a Residency Visa for the USA, while living in the USA. This may or may not be current, so if anyone has recent information that is contrary, please update here.

 

Possibly the Congress can write a law that will give the DACA people, and possibly the TPS people, a path to Permanent Residency (Green card), but both sides of the aisle will need to compromise, a lot, and there isn't a lot of compromising going on in the Congress in Washington DC. Without compromise, those people will remain in limbo.

 

If the DACA people are there because of an EO, that would make it trickier for them, because there is nothing codified in law for them.  If the TPS for the people from El Salvador is something the Congress authorized and a President signed, they would seem to have more standing. 

 

An extremely tough situation for all of those concerned.

[Butter]

Possibly the Congress can write a law that will give the DACA people, and possibly the TPS people, a path to Permanent Residency (Green card), but both sides of the aisle will need to compromise, a lot, and there isn't a lot of compromising going on in the Congress in Washington DC. Without compromise, those people will remain in limbo.

 

Just an FYI... I just watched part of a bipartisan press conference and they are indeed compromising on both sides regarding DACA (and border security) right now.

[Guest]

When you have more time, I'd love to hear how those with TPS are able to go back in time and fix the injustices of the past causing them to be here in the first place.

 

Whether one complies with property tax laws (or oodles of others) is nowhere near the same league as this one. Those don't involve human lives. This does. This is far more similar to deciding to return the Jews to WWII Germany.

 

We aren't discussing free immigration in this thread. We're discussing TPS folks. One will find there aren't a whole lot of folks who want to change countries when they are safe and can earn a living in the one they've grown up in anyway. Undoubtedly there are some (similar to us opting to want to live elsewhere soon due to wanting other things in our lives - like weather and BIG water, etc), but it's not the majority.

 

The FACT is something COULD be done now about these folks. Nothing is written in stone or the history books. If enough people speak up and/or learn what is really going on and opt to CARE, perhaps history will be different for them. New laws could be written.

 

I need to put on my old boots and head out to the chicken coop (reference to growing up poor thread), so like you, will be back sometime later. ;)

I don’t begin to think I know a great solution. I’m saying that not having a solution (that is something *I* can do) does not mean the law does not apply. Early in the thread, I asked how one gets TPS, because I was confusing it with refugees who were given passage for settlement here. Amira cleared that up for me. People under TPS were already here.

 

In your thread, you talked about not following laws and mentioned speeding, so it sounded to me as though *you* were talking about any law, not just those that have a humanitarian component.

 

I wasn’t saying people should immigrate here from first world countries, as Chief Cheetoe so recently blundered. I was pointing out that other FWNs have equally strict or more strict rules on letting people into their countries. Look, you’re a Landlord and so am I. If someone comes and squats in your vacant home, do you just let them stay? What if their previous home was a rat-infested apartment in West Baltimore with dirty needles littering the stairwells? What if they pleaded with you, saying, “You don’t understand how bad it is there! My kids cannot go to school because their lives are threatened the minute they walk out the door! Dudes bother my daughter and try to get my son into their drug running! You just gotta let me stay here! Don’t you *care*?â€

 

Now, maybe you have in fact let someone stay; if so, that would be wonderful. But I’m betting you have a limit on how many charity cases you will allow. Because at some point, you’re not a LL so you can provide charity housing to people who are desperate to get out of a bad living environment. (I’m making some assumptions here; correct me if I am wrong.) You *know* you cannot just take every sob-story that plays your heartstrings because you can get extremely screwed over. If you are wise, and I believe you are, you will put your charity efforts into organized programs so you can be somewhat protected from the users.

 

I am not for splitting up families or sending people back to a very troubled life. Someone close to me is trying to obtain Permanent Residency for her husband and the father of her kids. I have done what I can as far as provide an Affidavit for Immigration. With all my heart I hope for mercy in their case. They have children born here. It certainly does put a face on the problem for me.

 

I was simply agreeing with Garga that it does not make sense to me, either, that someone here illegally acts “surprised†when immigration intends to deport them. I agree that the system we have has many flaws, and the one the OP first mentioned - being here “temporarily†for 17 years - is clearly back-asswards. But I don’t think that means it is wrong to have laws regarding who/under what circumstances someone can become a citizen or resident.

[ktgrok]

But the squatting analogy presumes these people are freeloading. That just isn't the case. These are people actively contributing to society.

[Guest]

It's not a coincidence. The reason they came here is the reason for TPS. They fled violence, and TPS was designed to protect them from that violence. It goes together. IT wasn't like they all showed up here for no particular reason, just cause they like it here, and then war broke out, and then TPS was put in place. They came here BECAUSE of the violence...they were trying to save their LIVES and the lives of their kids! And the powers that be acknowledged that and created TPS with the idea that once things settled down at home they'd go back. But things didn't settle down.

I asked that question early in this thread. TPS is conferred when you have already gotten here. So, no, they are not necessarily here for the same reason as the status was conferred. They could have come here because they had a truly sucky life as a garment worker in Haiti, but then the earthquake happened, making it designated TPS.

[Guest]

But the squatting analogy presumes these people are freeloading. That just isn't the case. These are people actively contributing to society.

No, it presumes that they came here not through the legal channels.

[ktgrok]

No, it presumes that they came here not through the legal channels.

But squatters don't pay rent. Immigrants do pay taxes and support the economy. A better analogy might be someone lying on their rental application because of some grave reason, like fleeing an abusive spouse but otherwise being a good tenant and paying rent on time.

[Guest]

But squatters don't pay rent. Immigrants do pay taxes and support the economy. A better analogy might be someone lying on their rental application because of some grave reason, like fleeing an abusive spouse but otherwise being a good tenant and paying rent on time.

An illegal immigrant does not immediately become a productive member of society. Eventually? Sure, it’s possible. But there is absolutely a period of time when an illegal immigrant is likely to have no income, no fixed address, and not a lot of options for having those things.

 

Don’t pick my analogy apart; the squatter part was not important. What was important was that the person was fleeing a very bad living environment and did not go through legal channels to rent the home. And if someone did come out to my nice, suburban apartment home from a bad place in West Baltimore, there’s a good chance they are not bathing in money - just like someone who just spent nine months getting to this country illegally.

[creekland]

I don’t begin to think I know a great solution. I’m saying that not having a solution (that is something *I* can do) does not mean the law does not apply. Early in the thread, I asked how one gets TPS, because I was confusing it with refugees who were given passage for settlement here. Amira cleared that up for me. People under TPS were already here.

 

In your thread, you talked about not following laws and mentioned speeding, so it sounded to me as though *you* were talking about any law, not just those that have a humanitarian component.

 

I wasn’t saying people should immigrate here from first world countries, as Chief Cheetoe so recently blundered. I was pointing out that other FWNs have equally strict or more strict rules on letting people into their countries. Look, you’re a Landlord and so am I. If someone comes and squats in your vacant home, do you just let them stay? What if their previous home was a rat-infested apartment in West Baltimore with dirty needles littering the stairwells? What if they pleaded with you, saying, “You don’t understand how bad it is there! My kids cannot go to school because their lives are threatened the minute they walk out the door! Dudes bother my daughter and try to get my son into their drug running! You just gotta let me stay here! Don’t you *care*?â€

 

Now, maybe you have in fact let someone stay; if so, that would be wonderful. But I’m betting you have a limit on how many charity cases you will allow. Because at some point, you’re not a LL so you can provide charity housing to people who are desperate to get out of a bad living environment. (I’m making some assumptions here; correct me if I am wrong.) You *know* you cannot just take every sob-story that plays your heartstrings because you can get extremely screwed over. If you are wise, and I believe you are, you will put your charity efforts into organized programs so you can be somewhat protected from the users.

 

I am not for splitting up families or sending people back to a very troubled life. Someone close to me is trying to obtain Permanent Residency for her husband and the father of her kids. I have done what I can as far as provide an Affidavit for Immigration. With all my heart I hope for mercy in their case. They have children born here. It certainly does put a face on the problem for me.

 

I was simply agreeing with Garga that it does not make sense to me, either, that someone here illegally acts “surprised†when immigration intends to deport them. I agree that the system we have has many flaws, and the one the OP first mentioned - being here “temporarily†for 17 years - is clearly back-asswards. But I don’t think that means it is wrong to have laws regarding who/under what circumstances someone can become a citizen or resident.

 

I mentioned speeding with obeying laws because I hear too many people say, "but it's the law and the law has to be obeyed" as a reason why sending these folks home is ok.  If one uses that reasoning, do they personally obey all laws all the time or do they pick and choose?

 

Otherwise, I think your analogy needs to be adjusted to fit this system for this thread.  The squatters already came and were given the ok to live in the rental by the owner (regardless of who owns it - to fit best - a previous owner).  They end up doing well, getting jobs, and paying the rent.  Is it ok to come back later and say, "Well, sorry.  I'm kicking you out now!  Lucky you get to return to West Baltimore.  Your kids didn't grow up there, so don't have street smarts or speak the street language, but too bad.  I can, and I am doing this." 

 

Personally, I would never do such a thing.  I'd be glad I had decent tenants.  Perhaps you would think differently.

[Guest]

I mentioned speeding with obeying laws because I hear too many people say, "but it's the law and the law has to be obeyed" as a reason why sending these folks home is ok. If one uses that reasoning, do they personally obey all laws all the time or do they pick and choose?

 

Otherwise, I think your analogy needs to be adjusted to fit this system for this thread. The squatters already came and were given the ok to live in the rental by the owner (regardless of who owns it - to fit best - a previous owner). They end up doing well, getting jobs, and paying the rent. Is it ok to come back later and say, "Well, sorry. I'm kicking you out now! Lucky you get to return to West Baltimore. Your kids didn't grow up there, so don't have street smarts or speak the street language, but too bad. I can, and I am doing this."

 

Personally, I would never do such a thing. I'd be glad I had decent tenants. Perhaps you would think differently.

This is not how I understand the situation for immigrants whose country is under TPS. It would fit if they were refugees who has been legally resettled here.

 

They were not given the okay to live here. They were not made citizens nor placed on a path to obtain citizenship. It was simply agreed to by the government that “homeâ€was not a functional place to go back to at this time, hence temporary status. The squatters never had the legal right to occupy the apartment, whether it was agreed to by someone before you became owner or not. You are talking about this as if there was no beginning, as if, because they are here, they should just, of course, remain here.

 

If I bought a house that had rent-paying inhabitants in it already, awesome; one less thing I gotta worry about. I don’t care if they originally came from West Baltimore or whereever. If they now have a real Lease and they want to continue it, awesome. But I was talking about the originating situation. At some point, they were illegal squatters without the means or resources to be legal tenants. My question was what would you do then.

[regentrude]

I know more than most about legal immigration to the US.  I know a number of people who did legally immigrate from those countries so it is simply untrue that there was and is no line to get into etc.  There's a legal process, and people who choose to follow the legal process are at a disadvantage because of rhetoric.

 

I remember you saying the same in a previous thread, but never responding when I asked by which channel these people achieved their immigration. If they did not either have family in the US who sponsored their immigration or happened to be highly educated so that they could get in as a trained specialist, how did they manage?

[8circles]

An illegal immigrant does not immediately become a productive member of society. Eventually? Sure, it’s possible. But there is absolutely a period of time when an illegal immigrant is likely to have no income, no fixed address, and not a lot of options for having those things.

 

Don’t pick my analogy apart; the squatter part was not important. What was important was that the person was fleeing a very bad living environment and did not go through legal channels to rent the home. And if someone did come out to my nice, suburban apartment home from a bad place in West Baltimore, there’s a good chance they are not bathing in money - just like someone who just spent nine months getting to this country illegally.

 

I'm not out to pick your analogy apart, but the basic premise of your analogy doesn't work. 

 

Someone squatting in an apartment that you own is not the same, in any way except that it isn't legal, as someone being in the country that I am a citizen of.

 

There just are not similarities. 

 

I don't *own* my country in the same way that I would own an apartment that I rent out. Their existence isn't taking anything from me.

[TechWife]

They were not given the okay to live here.

As soon as TPS went into effect, they had the okay to live here. Any people who were here without proper documentation obtained that documentation when they registered for TPS status. At that point in time, they were fully complying with the law.

[ktgrok]

But I was talking about the originating situation. At some point, they were illegal squatters without the means or resources to be legal tenants. My question was what would you do then.

 

It may or may not matter to you in the context of this discussion, but it has been shown over and over that immigrants, including those that came here illegally, contribute far more to their societies, including economically, than they take. I mention this because it seems like you are saying they are a drain on society, and that just isn't the case, statistically speaking. Every dollar spent on helping immigrants is returned back, multiplied many times. 

[Guest]

As soon as TPS went into effect, they had the okay to live here. Any people who were here without proper documentation obtained that documentation when they registered for TPS status. At that point in time, they were fully complying with the law.

Not permanently. Not as citizens. They were given the perk of not being deported directly. Like if I told the squatter he could stay temporarily while he secured a job and a legal residence.

[ktgrok]

Not permanently. Not as citizens. They were given the perk of not being deported directly. Like if I told the squatter he could stay temporarily while he secured a job and a legal residence.

 

More like saying, "you can stay until your abusive husband gets put in prison" but then he never does. 

[Guest]

It may or may not matter to you in the context of this discussion, but it has been shown over and over that immigrants, including those that came here illegally, contribute far more to their societies, including economically, than they take. I mention this because it seems like you are saying they are a drain on society, and that just isn't the case, statistically speaking. Every dollar spent on helping immigrants is returned back, multiplied many times.

I am not saying they are a drain on society. But let’s not sugar-coat it, right? People who come here illegally from troubled countries do not arrive ready with their needed skills and ready to earn, spend and contribute to society as a citizen already established here does. As I said, I am close with a family with an undocumented member. He works. He earns. He pays taxes. But he didn’t do that ten minutes off the proverbial bus. And he is limited or barred from many forms of earning by virtue of being an illegal immigrant. He has been abusively treated in some cases because the employer knows he has no recourse because he is not here legally.

[justasque]

....

 

If I bought a house that had rent-paying inhabitants in it already, awesome; one less thing I gotta worry about. I don’t care if they originally came from West Baltimore or whereever. If they now have a real Lease and they want to continue it, awesome. But I was talking about the originating situation. At some point, they were illegal squatters without the means or resources to be legal tenants. My question was what would you do then.

 

I may have missed something along the way.  Why are you assuming those with TPS status came here illegally, as opposed to on some kind of non-immigrant visa?

[ktgrok]

I am not saying they are a drain on society. But let’s not sugar-coat it, right? People who come here illegally from troubled countries do not arrive ready with their needed skills and ready to earn, spend and contribute to society as a citizen already established here does. As I said, I am close with a family with an undocumented member. He works. He earns. He pays taxes. But he didn’t do that ten minutes off the proverbial bus. And he is limited or barred from many forms of earning by virtue of being an illegal immigrant. He has been abusively treated in some cases because the employer knows he has no recourse because he is not here legally.

 

Right, but in the long run, he contributes more than he took, right? So him being here, even illegally, is a net gain for the USA.

 

A squatter not paying rent would not be a net gain, hence why we were saying it wasn't a good analogy. 

[SKL]

I am not saying they are a drain on society. But let’s not sugar-coat it, right? People who come here illegally from troubled countries do not arrive ready with their needed skills and ready to earn, spend and contribute to society as a citizen already established here does. As I said, I am close with a family with an undocumented member. He works. He earns. He pays taxes. But he didn’t do that ten minutes off the proverbial bus. And he is limited or barred from many forms of earning by virtue of being an illegal immigrant. He has been abusively treated in some cases because the employer knows he has no recourse because he is not here legally.

 

Also, when the group "immigrants" is broken down between "legally immigrated" and "did not legally immigrate," the "they [the latter] give back to society multiple times over" does not work as a group.  Many of them are on assistance for years or generations.  "They pay taxes" is subject to broad interpretation.  It takes a significant increase in financial situation to get to the point of being a net contributor to the US and state treasuries.  Those who do eventually do well financially often send money back home to people who still live there, or use their earnings to support additional undocumented immigrants.

 

And another thing - there is nothing wonderful about having an illegal economy that exploits undocumented workers. 

 

The rosy picture some people are painting is just not reality for this group as a whole.  Are there some shining exceptions?  I'm sure there are.

[creekland]

This is not how I understand the situation for immigrants whose country is under TPS. It would fit if they were refugees who has been legally resettled here.

 

They were not given the okay to live here. They were not made citizens nor placed on a path to obtain citizenship. It was simply agreed to by the government that “homeâ€was not a functional place to go back to at this time, hence temporary status. The squatters never had the legal right to occupy the apartment, whether it was agreed to by someone before you became owner or not. You are talking about this as if there was no beginning, as if, because they are here, they should just, of course, remain here.

 

If I bought a house that had rent-paying inhabitants in it already, awesome; one less thing I gotta worry about. I don’t care if they originally came from West Baltimore or whereever. If they now have a real Lease and they want to continue it, awesome. But I was talking about the originating situation. At some point, they were illegal squatters without the means or resources to be legal tenants. My question was what would you do then.

 

Yes, they were given the ok to live here.  That's what TPS did.  It was temporary - just like a lease is temporary.  It was temporary assuming things would get better in the home country and folks would return.  Things didn't get better.  Folks had the ok to live here - get jobs - have kids, etc.  They did.  Things still aren't better in the home country and the vast majority of these folks have established decent tax-paying lives here.  It makes no sense whatsoever to kick them out now.

 

Yes, I'm talking about now, not the beginning, because as you stated with the Native Americans and the illegal immigration our relatives did, we can't fix that.  We can only change what's happening NOW.  No one can go back in history to make changes.  It makes no sense to discuss what should have happened then. That's in the history books.

[bibiche]

Also, when the group "immigrants" is broken down between "legally immigrated" and "did not legally immigrate," the "they [the latter] give back to society multiple times over" does not work as a group.  Many of them are on assistance for years or generations.  

 

 Nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens are ineligible for SNAP, SSI, and TANF. They are also ineligible for Medicaid with the exception of Medicaid for emergency conditions.13 States have the option to cover nonimmigrant and unauthorized aliens14 who are pregnant or who are children, and can meet the definition of “lawfully residing†in the United States.15

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33809.pdf

[regentrude]

Also, when the group "immigrants" is broken down between "legally immigrated" and "did not legally immigrate," the "they [the latter] give back to society multiple times over" does not work as a group.  Many of them are on assistance for years or generations.  

 

How so? Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for assistance.

 

Any child born in the US is a US citizen. Are you talking about US citizens receiving assistance you think they should not because their ancestors immigrated illegally?

Edited January 17, 2018 by regentrude

[SKL]

How so? Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for assistance.

 

Any child born in the US is a US citizen. Are you talking about US citizens receiving assistance you think they should not because their ancestors immigrated illegally?

 

This is just one of many articles that explain that people here illegally do receive benefits. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs-4431/article/2590744 There are also people who will cheat to get benefits, just like they borrow SSNs to get jobs etc.

 

It may have been confusing when I said "generations," as obviously the US-born children of anyone are US citizens.  But undocumented immigrant communities do often include multiple generations of immigrants and also other extended family members.

Edited January 17, 2018 by SKL

[bibiche]

This is just one of many articles that explain that people here illegally do receive benefits.  

 

Did you mean to link an article?

[TechWife]

This is just one of many articles that explain that people here illegally do receive benefits. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs-4431/article/2590744 There are also people who will cheat to get benefits, just like they borrow SSNs to get jobs etc.

 

It may have been confusing when I said "generations," as obviously the US-born children of anyone are US citizens.  But undocumented immigrant communities do often include multiple generations of immigrants and also other extended family members.

Eligibility for Non-Citizens in Medicaid and CHP 

 

SNAP Policy on Non-Citizen Eligibility 

 

HUD eligibility

 

When a household has both US citizens and immigrants with eligible immigration status, the household can receive benefits. When a household has immigrants that no not have an eligible immigration status, they are not included when calculating the benefit amount. An adult without immigration status can accept benefits on behalf of their citizen dependent, however that benefit is for the dependent, not the adult. The type and amount of the benefit reflects that fact. 

 

It is entirely possible that there are people without eligible immigrant status receiving benefits through fraudulent means, however, there is no proof that those without eligible status are any more or less likely to receive benefits through fraudulent means than a US citizen is. If you can find such proof, please provide it. I did a fairly thorough search and couldn't find current information (as in less than 15 years old). 

[Daria]

This is just one of many articles that explain that people here illegally do receive benefits. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs-4431/article/2590744 There are also people who will cheat to get benefits, just like they borrow SSNs to get jobs etc.

 

It may have been confusing when I said "generations," as obviously the US-born children of anyone are US citizens.  But undocumented immigrant communities do often include multiple generations of immigrants and also other extended family members.

 

That article doesn't actually support the title's claim, which is that illegal immigrants receive welfare benefits.  Instead the article says  that illegal immigrants are banned from receiving welfare benefits, but then goes on to count benefits given to children who are U.S. Citizens, as benefits to their parents.  

[goldberry]

The actual fact is that most of them have not come here because they feared for their lives in their home countries.  That is a fallacy. 

 

Do you have a source for that?  Asking honestly, because if that is true I would like to know.

dp 

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by GGardner

Possibly the Congress can write a law that will give the DACA people, and possibly the TPS people, a path to Permanent Residency (Green card), but both sides of the aisle will need to compromise, a lot, and there isn't a lot of compromising going on in the Congress in Washington DC. Without compromise, those people will remain in limbo.

 

 

Why do both sides of the aisle need to compromise?  One side holds a majority in both houses and the presidency.  They could pass whatever they like. 

[goldberry]

This is just one of many articles that explain that people here illegally do receive benefits. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs-4431/article/2590744 There are also people who will cheat to get benefits, just like they borrow SSNs to get jobs etc.

 

It may have been confusing when I said "generations," as obviously the US-born children of anyone are US citizens.  But undocumented immigrant communities do often include multiple generations of immigrants and also other extended family members.

 

If you go to the core data referenced by the article, it says that probability models were used to estimate which families were likely headed by illegal immigrants.  So there's that, just fyi.  

 

Families headed by illegal immigrants do get benefits for their American born children.  Is it likely that is an incentive for illegal immigrants to have children here? Sure. Although immigrant families often come from more "family friendly" cultures than ours to start with.

 

But is there really any compassionate way around that?  We don't want children starving here or going without shelter.  That's just part of who we are, and I'm glad of that.  The end result is that yes some illegal immigrant families with American born children will receive benefits, not indefinitely, but while the children are minors.  The goal is that those kids grow up well fed, well educated, and become contributing members of society.  What alternative is there really?  

 

I don't see that equaling generations of illegal immigrants in a cycle of welfare.  The whole point of the benefits for the American children is to break the cycle, and they are American citizens in the first place.

[SKL]

If you go to the core data referenced by the article, it says that probability models were used to estimate which families were likely headed by illegal immigrants.  So there's that, just fyi.  

 

Families headed by illegal immigrants do get benefits for their American born children.  Is it likely that is an incentive for illegal immigrants to have children here? Sure. Although immigrant families often come from more "family friendly" cultures than ours to start with.

 

But is there really any compassionate way around that?  We don't want children starving here or going without shelter.  That's just part of who we are, and I'm glad of that.  The end result is that yes some illegal immigrant families with American born children will receive benefits, not indefinitely, but while the children are minors.  The goal is that those kids grow up well fed, well educated, and become contributing members of society.  What alternative is there really?  

 

I don't see that equaling generations of illegal immigrants in a cycle of welfare.  The whole point of the benefits for the American children is to break the cycle, and they are American citizens in the first place.

 

There are also benefits for children here who are not US citizens.

 

I'm not saying that is wrong, I'm just saying let's be honest about it.

 

[justasque]

There are also benefits for children here who are not US citizens.

 

I'm not saying that is wrong, I'm just saying let's be honest about it.

 

 

Children who are not here legally are not eligible for food stamps, CHIP, and most if not all other federal benefits.  

[Guest]

Yes, they were given the ok to live here. That's what TPS did. It was temporary - just like a lease is temporary. It was temporary assuming things would get better in the home country and folks would return. Things didn't get better. Folks had the ok to live here - get jobs - have kids, etc. They did. Things still aren't better in the home country and the vast majority of these folks have established decent tax-paying lives here. It makes no sense whatsoever to kick them out now.

 

Yes, I'm talking about now, not the beginning, because as you stated with the Native Americans and the illegal immigration our relatives did, we can't fix that. We can only change what's happening NOW. No one can go back in history to make changes. It makes no sense to discuss what should have happened then. That's in the history books.

Creekland, *I* can’t do anything about people here right now under TPS. *I* would be creating a path to citizenship for non-criminals here under TPS. But *I* am not in any position to do one thing about it either way.