Native Americans had open immigration

And look at where it got them...

 

So, you're telling me there's full employment of US Citizens?

 

Also, mix economic groups so that low income workers live in areas, or have easy access, to places where the jobs are.

Here’s When You Can Actually Lose U.S. Citizenship: Denaturalization Explained

OK, this person makes it very clear about how this process works. I mentioned Danelo Cavalcante in the previous post. He was a murderer who came to the US illegally.

And he killed someone in the US.

To be quite honest, if someone doesn't want to follow the law to become a citizen, then they shouldn't be in the country.

Unless, you want some serious criminals, like Cavalcante, living here.

The US has enough problems it doesn't need to import more.

Canadian Prime Minister talks about immigration

 I have to admit that I think the left should be more inclined toward strong immigration laws, unless of course they want to bankrupt the nation. Or have taxation problems like California.

International law only guarantees a right of entry and exit into a nation for citizens. It's a privilege for everyone else. And it's a good idea to have some sort of background check for citizenship.

Unless you want things like the manhunt for Danelo Cavalcante to become a frequent event. That cost Pennsylvania taxpayers between $3.4 million and $3.5 million. Which only went mostly for overtime and was in addition to normal operating costs and didn't include the help from outside agencies. 

Sure, it's fun to laugh at Trump and others who talk about unlawfully present criminal aliens, but it's a different thing when you have to actually deal with the problem.

Emma Lazarus's poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is not an official policy. In fact, that belief is something I am sure Fox News hosts would have a field day with.

It's nice listening to other voices like the Canadian PM. And knowing what it takes to live and work in Canada (my cousin did it), I would like to see the US protecting its citizens and not the unlawfully present and paying foreigners less than citizens when there isn't full employment for US citizens. 

The US is too soft on unlawfully present people

 The less politically correct term is illegal immigrant, but the issue is their immigration status. One of the reasons for the laxness is that it is not a crime to be unlawfully present in the US, which it is in most other countries.

Anyway, this video is someone trying to get into Canada to work without proper authorisation.

I support stronger immigration controls since there definitely needs to be some sort of background check performed on people who want to come here. But it shouldn't be difficult for those who want to do it legally.

If no person is illegal...

Does this mean that you believe that slaves should legal?

After all, slaves are people.

But the issue isn't the person, but their status. Whether it is a slave or an unlawfully present person.

Yes, the person isn't "illegal", but their presence in the country is not legal. 

The right to enter one’s country, to stay in a country which one has legally entered, and to leave any country including one’s own, have been perceived as basic since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. When individuals claim human rights relating to freedom of movement, they are referring to the same facts and situations that states are concerned with when they assert jurisdiction over their own nationals and over resident aliens. The international law of jurisdiction is the means by which states allocate competence, between themselves, for the prescription and application of authority over events inside and outside their national boundaries.

The only people who have a right to come and go freely into a country are the citizens of that country. It's discretionary otherwise.

And people who haven't complied with the law are not lawfully present in the country.

I don't think it's the best idea to allow people who are not willing to comply with immigration laws to become citizens.

Let's stop playing games with Immigration and get serious about it.

No background check--No...

Permission to remain in the United States. While I support being able to move to other countries and live in them, I understand the reasons why there are requirements for non-citizens to go through a process for long term residency, or even have a visa for a tourist visit.

I bet that surprised you.  

On the other hand, it shouldn't since international law only gives a free right to enter and exit a nation of the citizens of that nation. It's a privilege for anyone else. Although that can be interesting in other countries since I should technically qualify for Polish citizenship. I probably could have gotten it had I applied after the Iron Curtain dropped, but Brexit created a real run on people applying for EU Citizenship using extenuated circumstances. Toss in the War in Ukraine for good measure. I could get into citizenship by ancestry, but I do not have a heritage in either Ireland or Italy (post unification). Germany sucks for that one since, unlike Italy, it only passes through the father (I guess it really is the Fatherland...).

Anyway, we are seeing poor enforcement of the laws on the books and the effects of crappy laws with crappy enforcement.

Sort of like another issue.

Too much confusion about immigration laws all around.

OK, this is one of the more complex aspects of law and most people have no idea that some things are a lot more complex than they appear. People talk about the "dreamers" as if they were like the people in Britain who were "Windrushed".

I have no sympathy for the Dreamers, but I have a lot of sympathy for the victims of a "Windrush".

But any serious discussion of immigration law requires some explanation. This is highly simplistic, but it gives an idea of how all this works.

First principle is that only citizens of a nation have a right to enter and exit the nation freely under international law. Everybody else enters and exits a foreign nation does so under condition. It is not a right for someone to enter a foreign country: especially unlawfully.

There are two ways to get citizenship: by birth or naturalisation. Birth can work by jus soli or jus sanguinus.The United States uses jus soli, which means someone has citizenship merely by being born inside the US. It is in the Constitution (14th Amendment).

Like most countries, the United States also has jus sanguinus, which means that you can have citizenship through your parents registering your foreign birth. People can inherit citizenship depending on the other countries' laws (e.g, Italy, Ireland, The United Kingdom, etc.).

Most countries have combinations of both jus soli or jus sanguinus. Some do it in such a way so that simply being born in a country does not result in citizenship (Ireland now requires at least one parent is an Irish Citizen or resident alien for citizenship). The US can't do this without changing the Constitution to require some parental connection to the United States. That was something that made sense after emancipation of the slaves, but doesn't make sense now.

The US is one place where the laws are fairly static, for what that is worth. One cannot lose, or renounce, citizenship without some serious consequences. The people who usually lose citizenship are people who became citizens under fraudulent circumstances (e.g, war criminals).

Another thing to explain is that Asylum is regulated by International law.

Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.

Asylum is an incredibly complex topic. I could easily do a very large book on the topic. The bottom line here is that not everyone qualifies as a refugee: no matter how sad their story may be. People escaping Central America's gang violence is a case in point: especially since most of those gangs were formed in the US!

Coming to the US to escape gangs in Central America makes as much sense as going to Sicily to escape the Mafia.

I'll add in that A valid passport is required for entry into most foreign countries. More than 80% of all countries in the world require a passport for entry. Some countries require foreign nationals to have a visa. Even if a passport is not required for entrance into a foreign country, it is required to re-enter the United States in most cases. Additionally, there are visa requirements for entry into the US for some foreign nationals. Not having the proper visa is another violation of immigration law.

Lack of the proper documentation as a foreigner means the person is in violation of immigration laws and unlawfully present in the country.

As I said, this is highly simplistic, but it explains the basics.

The real bottom line is that the law is the law. It doesn't matter whether one agrees with it or not. One must obey the law as is.

Or work to change it.

See also:

• 'I felt like dirt': disabled Canadian woman told to leave UK after 44 years 
• Windrush generation: Who are they and why are they facing problems?
• Windrush: How do you prove you've been living in the UK?

Windrush is not the same as the "dreamers"

First off, the "dreamers" are unlawfully present. They are fully aware that they are not legal immigrants.

Secondly, DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (and DAPA is Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) aren't really amnesties. Neither do they change the status from being unlawfully present to lawfully present.  They merely "defer" any deportation.

DACA and DAPA recipients are still unlawfully present and would need to leave the country for the required period of deportation to even consider getting legal residency under current law.

On the other hand, Windrush refers to people who were citizens of colonies or commonwealth countries. The picture of the British Empire Passports gives you a clue to the problem.  These people were under the impression that they were British Citizens, which they were up until 1971.

Wouldn't you think you were British if your passport said "British Passport"? Or said you were a "British Subject"?

First part of the changes were some of the places Windrush immigrants came from gained independence.  The Second part was The The Immigration Act 1971, which ironically was also partly passed to legally clarify the rights of Commonwealth citizens within the United Kingdom in preparation for future membership of the European Communities which the UK became a member state on 1 January 1973 which gave new automatic rights to EC member state citizens.

So, it's amusing this is coming in tandem with Brexit which is now removing the right of residency for EU member state citizens.  Anyway...

A closer analogy for people in the US would be an overzealous ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) going after people who were from Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands since those are territories, not states. The Philippines, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau are former territories which gained independence from the US. People from American Samoa can visit the US without a visa, but they need to go through the naturalisation process to become citizens.

Windrush vs. the "Dreamers".

OK, we are told about a group of people who came to a country for a better life, but are having problems with their immigration status.

Who do you feel sorry for: the people who didn't do it legally?

or

The people who were legal immigrants, who were actually invited to build a war torn nation, yet now find the legality of their immigration status in question?

Personally, I go with the second group, which is a discussion of the Windrush Generation. Given the Windrush crowd is pretty much black and from the Caribbean (although I do know of people from the Subcontinent who were invited under similar circumstances). Windrush refers to:

Those arriving in the UK between 1948 and 1971 from Caribbean countries have been labelled the Windrush generation.
This is a reference to the ship MV Empire Windrush, which arrived at Tilbury Docks, Essex, on 22 June 1948, bringing workers from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and other islands, as a response to post-war labour shortages in the UK.
The ship carried 492 passengers - many of them children.

Since they were Commonwealth Citizens, they had a right of residency in the UK. The Windrush generation were legal, even if they were the subjects of racism. That is a big difference from the DAPA/DACA crowd who arrived illegally and have been looking over their shoulder from the start.

Get the picture?

Although, there is some debate about their legality, but they were colonial citizens. This is a summary of the problem:

The Home Office did not keep a record of those granted leave to remain or issue any paperwork confirming it - meaning it is difficult for Windrush arrivals to prove they are in the UK legally.
And in 2010, landing cards belonging to Windrush migrants were destroyed by the Home Office.
Because they came from British colonies that had not achieved independence, they believed they were British citizens.

Add into this mess the fact that many Windrush migrants who have had their legal status called into question have been in the UK for decades, often paying taxes and making pension contributions. Windrush migrants must prove they have been in the UK continually since 1 January 1973, when they were granted the right to stay in the country permanently. Anyone who has left the country for more than two years loses their right to remain. The Home Office did not keep records of the people to whom it granted indefinite leave to remain in the 1970s. Some stayed but did not apply for British citizenship meaning there is no official record of their legal status. People must apply for an official stamp known as No Time Limit (NTL), at a cost of £229 to have this official recognition for their right of abode in the UK.


I see a few differences here between people who are called "Dreamers" and the Windrush crowd. First off, Windrush had a legal status and were invited to live in the UK. Second off, the Windrush crowd was living as legal citizens. Thirdly, their situation is primarily one of bureaucratic malfeasance, which isn't just attributable to the Tories since it was a Labour government that destroyed the landing cards.

That is quite a difference between the "dreamers" whose entry was not legal and their status is that of being unlawfully present in the US. The dreamers have had the threat of deportation hanging over their head from the start based upon their being unlawfully present. There are legal remedies for the "dreamers", but they entail leaving the United States and going to the back of the line.

Tough shit, they should have paid an immigration lawyer less than they paid their coyote to get them into the US. Toss in we are talking human trafficking if there were indeed coyotes involved.

Bottom line, I am not a fan of amnesties. People can work to make the laws more favourable toward immigration if they have an issue with unlawfully present people getting proper immigration status. On the other hand, I have much more sympathies for people like the Windrush Generation, or the people whose residency will be put in the air by Brexit than I do with people who try to skirt immigration law sas the "dreamers" have done.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

See also:

• 'I felt like dirt': disabled Canadian woman told to leave UK after 44 years 
• Windrush generation: Who are they and why are they facing problems?
• Windrush: How do you prove you've been living in the UK?

Trying to have it both ways.......immigration

This graphic is from the FB page, Boycott Koch Industries.



It reflects the contradictions that underpin what the right incorrectly believes about the issue of immigration.  It is part of the pattern of demonizing immigrants, both those who are legal and those who are undocumented. 

It is factually false in BOTH versions in the graphic. 

Immigrants are not stealing jobs from Americans, in fact they provide much labor that would go unperformed otherwise.  And immigrants are not lazy; they want to work, and indeed BOTH legal AND undocumented immigrants start up new businesses at twice the rate of American citizens, AND they pay a significant amount of taxes, including into social security (which they cannot collect from).

While coming to this country benefits those who do so, often those people are fleeing hellish conditions, it is still a less than desirable life to live in the shadows.  We NEED immigration reform.  We should be treating these people with compassion (except for those who are criminals like those who willingly - as distinct from unwillingly through coercion - work for drug cartels etc.).

As with the famous Bible quote (John 8:32) about the truth setting you free, the truth, the FACTS, about immigration and why it is GOOD for the United States could set a lot of people free - not only the immigrants themselves, but those who harbor ill will towards them without legitimate foundation to do so.

Because the issue of immigration is so central to the political right wing in 2015 and 2016 elections, it is imperative that we correct the misinformation and propaganda deception of the right wing voters with solid facts and effective persuasion.  Not doing so, successfully, will harm all of us, not just the right, not just immigrants, but ALL of us, as a nation.

It won't be easy to do, but it is important to do.  Please, start with sharing this.  Hopefully the Schrodinger reference will be understood and the humor will help be persuasive, when put so graphically.

Mine were here to greet them...

I'll be the first to admit that I am not PC, and, while this does portray a stereotypical Native American, this clip from "Ma and Pa Kettle Back on the Farm" (1951) makes a very good point: