Romney v McCain on Amnesty....was Mitt pandering again? - Page 5 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

TripletDaddy · 01-07-2008, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJRoss

Personally I think that in situations like these where the familial relationships are tied (meaning that parent and children do live with each other and have a bona fide relationship i lieu of someone spreading their seed and claiming I have children here) that the parent could receive a residential visa, but no green card. They could be on a delayed ticket home which kicks in when their children have become of legal age.

During their sojourn in the US, they would not be eligible for welfare benefits, social security, etc. When my wife was applying for her green card, she was told that she during her first 3 years living in the US could not apply for any welfare type programs. She had to prove that she could provide for herself (either on her own or via me and my family). So demanding that should not be considered as being unfair.

I would also put people in these situations on a slow track category amongst those applying to come into the US legally. Reason? Because they enjoyed a favored status due to having children born in this country. For families who brought their children over where the children were over the age of five should be able to go back to their home country with children in tow. It may sound harsh, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and amnesty is not the right answer.

Do you have any practical rationale for imposing such sanctions? In the hypo, the parents have already been here for over a decade. What is the point of sending them back to Mexico in 9 more years once their elementary school kids turn 18? at that point, they have been in the country for 20 years. I dont get the point in sending them back?

Also, why put people on a slow track, other than to punish them? Is there any other reason?

I am actually opposed to illegal immigration, but I just dont see any reason to propose impractical solutions such as carting off people who are not committing crimes, who are working, etc..when they have kids who are citizens.

How do you propose determining how old kids were when the parents showed up illegally? That solution makes no sense.

Carting off the unencumbered is another issue. that can be implemented more realistically, it would seem, and it would eliminate the need for all these ancillary plans you suggest, such as slow tracks, deportation in 10 years, etc..

DJRoss · 01-07-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Do you have any practical rationale for imposing such sanctions? In the hypo, the parents have already been here for over a decade. What is the point of sending them back to Mexico in 9 more years once their elementary school kids turn 18? at that point, they have been in the country for 20 years. I dont get the point in sending them back?

Also, why put people on a slow track, other than to punish them? Is there any other reason?

I am actually opposed to illegal immigration, but I just dont see any reason to propose impractical solutions such as carting off people who are not committing crimes, who are working, etc..when they have kids who are citizens.

How do you propose determining how old kids were when the parents showed up illegally? That solution makes no sense.

Carting off the unencumbered is another issue. that can be implemented more realistically, it would seem, and it would eliminate the need for all these ancillary plans you suggest, such as slow tracks, deportation in 10 years, etc..

Hey I only thought about it a few minutes before throwing that out there, so sure it isn't tight.

Regarding sending the parents back once their children are legal adults I think would be like sending a foreign student who has been on a student visa for 6 to 8 years, sure they have family in the US, but they delayed their leaving for the benefit of raising their family. Just because they have become acclimatized to the US isn't sufficient reason IMO for them to just stay. The slow track would mean that they would be in the back of the line when applying. Not fast tracking them due to familial relationships which is normally the case on immigration. So I guess I should have said they get in the back of the line (slow track was not meaning they would be penalized more than anyone who is in the back of the line).

Regarding the age verification, I would say that 18 or upon graduating from High School which ever comes last. That way it really would not matter what the child's actually age was, since the likelihood that those coming in would want to fudge their childrens ages on the side of youth.