I don't think so. If someone is undocumented and they get papers authorizing them to work lawfully, they are no longer "illegal." People are up in arms, so to speak, about what they ignorantly and erroneously think is an amnesty bill. There are already a number of ways that people who enter the US without permission ("illegally") can become permanent residents.
2007-05-21 12:23:24 · 18 answers · asked by Jenny C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
I certainly can both enumerate and detail the ways in which people here illegally can become legal:
U visa -- victims of violent crimes can get this visa, which can lead to permanent residency, if they have been victims of certain crimes and assist law enforcement in prosecution of crimes. T visa -- victims of a severe form of human trafficking can get this visa and eventually permanent residency. Victims of domestic violence can self-petition to become permanent residents. Political Asylum. If you come to the US fleeing persecution based on race, religion, national origin, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, in your homeland, you could possibly get asylum. Also leads to permanent residency. There are other ways, but I'm limited in space.
I have been paying taxes for plenty of years. I'm actually on a payment plan and write monthly checks to the IRS.
I am pro-immigrant. Not pro-"illegal."
2007-05-21 12:46:54 · update #1
On this board I am considered a Pro-illegal. And for the most part I am. I am for most of the people that are here illegally to be able to get papers. Check out other questions that I have answered that explains what I would change about the immigration laws/the bill that is trying to pass now if you want to know exactly where I stand.
However, contrary to what others on here have said, I am not anti-laws. I have been to other countries and have seen the reasons why they come here. I also have dealt with immigration on behalf/with my inlaws, and I know how difficult it is for the average person to get papers.
Also - for those who are not in agreement with me, not one have I said, nor will I say you are a racist unless you make a specific racist comment. I was raised to respect - even if I don't agree with - others opinions.
2007-05-21 14:30:44 · answer #1 · answered by jensantosleon 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bill is clearly amnesty with a couple of twists... The only thing I might support in the bill is border security but if you read what proposed it still not cut and dry.... We don't have too much time to figure the immigration problem out before we are inundated with 15 million more breaking our laws purposely.... Our new neighbors for the most part want more entitlements ..Can we really afford that? NO NO NO!
I don't understand why people don't consider what has happened to California....Maybe we should all exempt on our taxes and put the squeeze on we Americans need to march as they do but how do you light the fire under tens of thousands of Americans..Is it even possible?
2007-05-21 12:38:49 · answer #2 · answered by blahblah 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Pro-illegal is someone who supports illegals getting amnesty. Geraldo is the leader of the pack. If you say anything except amnesty your a racist, and he will cut you off and holler louder than a megaphone, so anyone conversing on his show does not have a chance if they do not agree with him.
Go to http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/amnesty.html?NS_cid=104
and you will see the headline 2007 Immigration Reform and Amnesty.
Need I say more
2007-05-21 13:23:19 · answer #3 · answered by Judy V 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your information of the Bible is fairly undesirable. It became no longer Jonah it became Elijah. The Bible would not state that the guy might have a great, that became if there became no death, if there became it became to be eye for eye an identical through fact something of the regulation. i will assert with a rapidly face thatthe Bible says that any one who sheds human blood shall have their blood shed by way of people. Genesis 9:6. this is your passage, study the entire undertaking. Exodus 21:22 "If adult adult males war with one yet another and strike a woman with baby so as that she supplies delivery upfront, yet there is not any harm, he shall rather be fined through fact the lady's husband could call for of him, and he shall pay through fact the judges settle on. 23 "yet whilst there is any extra harm, then you definately shall rent as a penalty existence for existence,
2016-10-31 01:10:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are for Amnesty, you are pro-illegal. Yes, they won't be illegal if you succeed, but they're still illegal, now, and you're championing thier interests.
The issue is illegal immigration, you do not get to hand-wave away the 'illegal' part. That's Congress's job.
2007-05-21 13:17:44 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This little non amnesty bill you are so permissive with will cost the taxpayers 2.3 TRILLION dollars. That is why people are so "up in arms". It also rewards those who break our laws while those who go the legal path get ignored. There is definitely ignorance here but as to which side its on I guess is open to interpretation.
Don't you think we should at least get to study the bill before we write a blank check? Let immigration specialists study it before you shove it down the throats of the American people.
2007-05-21 12:28:16 · answer #6 · answered by M B 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Pro-respect and credit where due.
Pedophiles should be handed over to a maximum security facility where it's population freely roams around. Same goes with child abusers young and old. And embezzlers,elderly abusers...Mexican / American etc.!
2007-05-21 12:51:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really? Would you care to enumerate the ways that undocumented workers can currently become permanent residents?
I would support an amnesty bill if it weren't for the prohibitive fees that will prevent people from declaring themselves and the de-emphasis of family connections in our immigration policy. Doesn't it occur to anyone that if legal residents can't bring their family members here, they will have to send more of their money out of the country instead of spending it here?
2007-05-21 12:33:27 · answer #8 · answered by RE 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
People who have snuck in this country(many of whom commit further crimes)and then allowing them to stay is amnesty.Period..EDIT.Are we that dumb to believe a measly 5,000.00 fine over 8 years and a "touchback" is justified?
2007-05-21 12:36:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yeah right, it's not an amnesty bill.
And those at Abu Ghrabi only used enchanced interview techniques, not torture.....
2007-05-21 12:36:08 · answer #10 · answered by Pop S 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋