Amira Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 We can advocate to allow long-term TPS recipients to be able to adjust their status. There are plenty of groups working on this right now. One that I’m involved with is doing a major effort tomorrow to visit as many members of Congressas possible to ask for this. If we all just say there’s nothing we can do, nothing will happen. But advocacy can make a difference. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 We can advocate to allow long-term TPS recipients to be able to adjust their status. There are plenty of groups working on this right now. One that I’m involved with is doing a major effort tomorrow to visit as many members of Congressas possible to ask for this. If we all just say there’s nothing we can do, nothing will happen. But advocacy can make a difference. That’s great. I would not be in an advocacy group because I do not know enough about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 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. No, they can't under current Senate rules. Only way the tax cut was passed was because it was a budgetary item and it had to do with the Senate rules where changes to budget can be done with only majority vote. That is the way Obamacare was passed too- as a budgetary item. But it cannot be done for something like immigration rules, which isn't a budgetary item. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 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? It really depends from where and under what circumstances. Yes, there were definitely some people who were completely legally here whether on student visas, tourist visas, etc, when the earthquake struck in Haiti, for example. Depending on the country, more or less people had entered illegally but as others have pointed out- and why I also was not interested as much in any wall as in other measures for border control- many people in this country illegally originally had visas to enter or were under visa waiver program (none of the TPS countries are in the Visa Waiver Program). Nowadays it is a lot more common for people to overstay but I don't know the exact percentages of illegal entry or overstay. I was an Immigration Officer at an airport and part of my job was to figure out who was fraudentaly entering the US. One common issue at my airport was visa waiver passengars who were planning to marry, work or go to school- all forbidden under visa waiver. And that is the problem places like Australia have with Americans who overstay or fraudulently enter- they come on visa waiver and just stay. El Salvadorans more typically used to enter through Mexico. Haitians either did boats (less often) or visa overstays or misuse of visas probably more often. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 According to the most recent data from the government, over 98 percent of nonimmigrant visa holders use their visas correctly. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebody2 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 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. This is what I was going to say. I was also wondering how on earth the authors of the study were able to determine who was an illegal or legal immigrant head of household. There really is no way to know that. Also, the main takeaway from the article (for me anyway) is that immigrants from Latin America receive the most welfare benefits of any immigrant group. Was that the point trying to be made by the poster who linked the article? If so, I think that's a very different issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 Good article about this topic... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-border-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216 Overstays have exceeded those entering illegally every year since 2007, and there have been half a million more overstays than illegal entries since 2007. also... According to the report, in 2014, 42 percent of all undocumented persons in the U.S. were “overstays.†Of those who arrived or joined the undocumented population in 2014, 66 percent were overstays. Chris, above is an article I shared upthread that I found about the topic as of 2014. Nowadays it is a lot more common for people to overstay but I don't know the exact percentages of illegal entry or overstay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 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. Did you read through the links I provided? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 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. School and emergency room visits. I think that's about it though? Justasque pointed out they are not eligible for food stamps and CHIP. Not sure about WIC? But WIC should be available to all if it's not. I don't think that equals thousands of dollars a month though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daria Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 School and emergency room visits. I think that's about it though? Justasque pointed out they are not eligible for food stamps and CHIP. Not sure about WIC? But WIC should be available to all if it's not. I don't think that equals thousands of dollars a month though. If we're including school and infrastructure and help with medical costs in our definition of "welfare benefits" then the numbers for citizen headed households is going to go way up. That will be an entirely different comparison. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 ... I was an Immigration Officer at an airport and part of my job was to figure out who was fraudentaly entering the US. One common issue at my airport was visa waiver passengars who were planning to marry, work or go to school- all forbidden under visa waiver. And that is the problem places like Australia have with Americans who overstay or fraudulently enter- they come on visa waiver and just stay. El Salvadorans more typically used to enter through Mexico. Haitians either did boats (less often) or visa overstays or misuse of visas probably more often. People who are interested in this topic might enjoy the TV shows "Border Patrol" and "Border Security", some seasons of which are available now on Netflix. The shows feature border patrol officers screening people and goods at land crossings, airports, sea ports, and also goods sent through the mail. There are various countries featured in different seasons/versions, including Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the US. It is a good education in all kinds of border rules and issues. For example, if you've had a serious drunk driving conviction, chances are good that you aren't welcome in Canada for at least ten years. Trying to come into a country to work or to marry on the wrong kind of visa is common (and you'll get turned away if they catch you). And it's interesting to see the differences between the various countries. New Zealand and Australia often have people coming in with suitcases full of undeclared and unusual Asian foods, many of which are prohibited for biosecurity reasons. And there are lots of Americans who think they can bring their medicinal marijuana or their guns into Canada. (The weed is not allowed; the guns are only allowed with the right paperwork.) Not going to win Emmys any time soon, but nonetheless an interesting glimpse into the intricacies of border control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 The fact that many people are here illegally due to overstaying their visas does not mean we don't need more border security. The people who would bring drugs or have a known criminal history or be illegally bringing other people's kids would have more chance of sneaking over the border than through airport security. While we have an interest in reducing the visa overstays, we have an even bigger interest in reducing the ground illegal border crossings. This would hopefully also have the effect of reducing the horrible crimes that are committed and other harm done along the journey with people attempting ground border crossings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 The fact that many people are here illegally due to overstaying their visas does not mean we don't need more border security. The people who would bring drugs or have a known criminal history or be illegally bringing other people's kids would have more chance of sneaking over the border than through airport security. While we have an interest in reducing the visa overstays, we have an even bigger interest in reducing the ground illegal border crossings. This would hopefully also have the effect of reducing the horrible crimes that are committed and other harm done along the journey with people attempting ground border crossings. +1 A year or so ago, I remember seeing on the TV news, people crossing on Jet Skis, to go from Mexico into Texas. They paid. It was a Water Taxi service. Nothing to it. A simple quick way to get across the river. I believe the vast majority of people crossing illegally are decent hard working people. However, they have also caught people, including ISIS and MS-13 members, crossing that border. Decent people can enter that way, and probably more than a few terrorists have crossed into the USA that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) The fact that many people are here illegally due to overstaying their visas does not mean we don't need more border security. The people who would bring drugs or have a known criminal history or be illegally bringing other people's kids would have more chance of sneaking over the border than through airport security. While we have an interest in reducing the visa overstays, we have an even bigger interest in reducing the ground illegal border crossings. This would hopefully also have the effect of reducing the horrible crimes that are committed and other harm done along the journey with people attempting ground border crossings. Regarding drugs, this is an interesting article about how different ways drugs get into the U.S. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34934574 Apparently a large percentage come via water, moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-drugs-are-seized-at-the-us-mexico-border-2016-10/#cocaine-seizures-at-the-southern-border-have-declined-but-larger-amounts-are-being-brought-in-through-other-routes-4 According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration, 80% of the drugs that came into the US in 2012 came via maritime routes. The DEA also reported that 30% of the drugs smuggled into the US by sea routes were transported on narco submarines. I see it as more of "where is the best place to spend money to actually impact something". So, is the concern about American welfare dollars used by illegal immigrant families? Then visa overstays account for the highest percentages of families. Is the concern about stopping drugs coming into the country? Then probably our water borders are the place to focus. Is the concern about the welfare of those making the trip across the border? Then maybe yes, tighter border security might discourage more people from crossing, but certainly won't eliminate those who think their life or their children's lives depend on it. All those different arguments could be made, but lumping them all together as "why we need a border wall/tighter border security" is disingenuous. It all starts being rambled together (as it has in this thread) when really these are separate issues that do not all have the same answer. In reality, the highest percentage of illegal immigrants are not coming across the border, nor are most of the drugs. Edited January 17, 2018 by goldberry 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 This thread wasn't about the wall issue, but no it is not disingenuous to attack a complex problem (or several complex problems) in multiple ways. I can't even go pick up my kids from school or watch a ball game or report to traffic court without having to pass through security. I'm not dangerous, nor are the vast majority of people crossing those thresholds, but look how much money is spent on security within the USA. There are legitimate reasons to increase border security and if that isn't enough for you, you're entitled to your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 (edited) This thread wasn't about the wall issue, but no it is not disingenuous to attack a complex problem (or several complex problems) in multiple ways. I can't even go pick up my kids from school or watch a ball game or report to traffic court without having to pass through security. I'm not dangerous, nor are the vast majority of people crossing those thresholds, but look how much money is spent on security within the USA. There are legitimate reasons to increase border security and if that isn't enough for you, you're entitled to your opinion. I never said I was against increased border security at all. Actually I personally care quite a bit about the dangers to and exploitation of those attempting the border crossings. So slowing that down is a valid goal in my opinion. I'm against it being presented as something it's not. The wall/tight border security will stop the rampant flow of drugs into the U.S. No, it won't. That isn't where a majority of the drugs are coming from. Will it help some? Sure. But if that were someone's serious goal they would be spending money on other things first. The wall/tight border security will stop all the welfare money going to illegal immigrants families. (We've already determined that these are illegal immigrant families with American citizen children, but anyway...) No, it will not stop the MAJORITY of it, because the majority of illegal immigrants are coming from visa overstays. I am against those misconceptions being put out like they are truth. The same types of things are being put out there about TPS. Immigration is and always has been about businesses getting what they want and politicians making it look like they are trying to solve the problem so they can get re-elected, but without having any guts to actually take on the business part of it. The people are the ones caught in the crossfire. They are the easy targets. Truth: If there were no jobs available for illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants (for the most part) would stop coming here. Addressing one side of the problem is just window dressing. (Refugee/Asylum seeking is a separate issue.) Edited January 17, 2018 by goldberry 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 The fact that many people are here illegally due to overstaying their visas does not mean we don't need more border security. The people who would bring drugs or have a known criminal history or be illegally bringing other people's kids would have more chance of sneaking over the border than through airport security. While we have an interest in reducing the visa overstays, we have an even bigger interest in reducing the ground illegal border crossings. This would hopefully also have the effect of reducing the horrible crimes that are committed and other harm done along the journey with people attempting ground border crossings. Border security =/= a wall. Look into the virtual stuff they are doing at the border. It works very, very well. You are wrong, however about the way drugs enter. The majority of drugs are smuggled in through vehicles going through checkpoints, via boats, and human carriers on commercial aircraft. In all those cases the means of transport (vehicle, boat, human) are admitted legally. Illegal means of transport include drones (which could be flown over a wall) and tunnels (which already exist and will continue to go right under where a wall would be). Quite a bit of human trafficking comes across in some way that allows legal entry of the mode of transportation. I am a bit puzzled at why we would have a bigger interested in reducing the ground illegal border crossings when the majority of people illegally in the US didn't actually come that way. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 I never said I was against increased border security at all. Actually I personally care quite a bit about the dangers to and exploitation of those attempting the border crossings. So slowing that down is a valid goal in my opinion. I'm against it being presented as something it's not. The wall/tight border security will stop the rampant flow of drugs into the U.S. No, it won't. That isn't where a majority of the drugs are coming from. Will it help some? Sure. But if that were someone's serious goal they would be spending money on other things first. The wall/tight border security will stop all the welfare money going to illegal immigrants families. (We've already determined that these are illegal immigrant families with American citizen children, but anyway...) No, it will not stop the MAJORITY of it, because the majority of illegal immigrants are coming from visa overstays. I am against those misconceptions being put out like they are truth. The same types of things are being put out there about TPS. Immigration is and always has been about businesses getting what they want and politicians making it look like they are trying to solve the problem so they can get re-elected, but without having any guts to actually take on the business part of it. The people are the ones caught in the crossfire. They are the easy targets. Truth: If there were no jobs available for illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants (for the most part) would stop coming here. Addressing one side of the problem is just window dressing. (Refugee/Asylum seeking is a separate issue.) Since when does a measure have to prevent the "majority" of xyz in order to be justified? Of course they are addressing the other ways illegal imports and migration occur. Anyway, the OP wasn't talking about the wall and I don't want to make this about a wall. I don't even know why the wall came up, I just responded to what I considered an incorrect statement that someone made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Since when does a measure have to prevent the "majority" of xyz in order to be justified? Cost vs. benefit. If the cost is extremely high (wall) and the benefit is extremely low (stop a tiny percentage of drugs or people crossing illegally), it is not worth it. (Conversations often meander from what the OP says in the beginning, especially after several pages.) 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.