For those who defend Trump

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

I haven't seen any credible evidence that America's immigration laws are inherently unjust or immoral.  The reality is that they are among the most lax and lenient in the civilized world.

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

Catholic Church's Position on Immigration Reform

Migration and Refugee Services/Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops August 2013

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there are currently 11.2 million unauthorized persons residing in the United States. Each year, approximately 300,000 more unauthorized immigrants enter the country. In large part, these immigrants feel compelled to enter by either the explicit or implicit promise of employment in the U.S. agriculture, construction, and service industries, among others. Most of this unauthorized flow comes from Mexico, a nation struggling with severe poverty, where it is often impossible for many to earn a living wage and meet the basic needs of their families.

Survival has thus become the primary impetus for unauthorized immigration flows into the United States. Today’s unauthorized immigrants are largely low‐skilled workers who come to the United States for work to support their families. Over the past several decades, the demand by U.S. businesses, large and small, for low‐skilled workers has grown exponentially, while the supply of available workers for low‐skilled jobs has diminished. Yet, there are only 5,000 green cards available annually for low‐skilled workers to enter the United States lawfully to reside and work. The only alternative to this is a temporary work visa through the H‐2A (seasonal agricultural) or H2B (seasonal non‐agricultural) visa programs which provide temporary status to low‐skilled workers seeking to enter the country lawfully. While H‐2A visas are not numerically capped, the requirements are onerous. H‐2B visas are capped at 66,000 annually. Both only provide temporary status to work for a U.S. employer for one year. At their current numbers, these are woefully insufficient to provide legal means for the foreign‐born to enter the United States to live and work, and thereby meet our demand for foreign‐born labor.

In light of all of this, many unauthorized consider the prospect of being apprehended for crossing illegally into the United States a necessary risk. Even after being arrested and deported, reports indicate that many immigrants attempt to re‐enter the United States once again in the hope of bettering their lives.

Adding to this very human dilemma is the potentially dangerous nature of crossing the Southern border. Smugglers looking to take advantage of would‐be immigrants extort them for exorbitant sums of money and then transport them to the U.S. under perilous conditions. Other immigrants have opted to access the U.S. by crossing through the Southwest’s treacherous deserts. As a result, thousands of migrants have tragically perished in such attempts from heat exposure, dehydration, and drowning.

Catholic Social Teaching

The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241.

The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." Catholic Catechism, 2241.

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, "Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope." In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, "[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right." No. 35. The Bishops made clear that the "[m]ore powerful economic nations…ave a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows." No. 36.

USCCB Position

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes "enforcement only" immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population "out of the shadows," as members of their communities.

Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Family‐based Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.

Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

[havok579257]

50 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

You fail to understand, though, that no right to immigrate to the United States exists according to US law. Residency and naturalization are privileges, not rights. Someone not getting a privilege which they want but to which they are not entitled is not a case of injustice.

"I believe your doing exactly as Atlantic intended which was to go out and judge or accuse Trump supporters." And to give a nobody like Richard Spencer a bully pulpit. No one would take people like him or David Duke or Fred Phelps seriously if Big Media didn't give them this publicity.

But, hey, it keeps money coming into the ADL and SPLC and groups like that, right?

its a case of injustuce if people are denied unjustly.  if someone is denied because the immigration official in their mind deems them to fat, then that is unjust.  Residency and naturalization are privileges because who says so? The elected officials?  The government?  Except many of them go against the rule of law or want to go against the rule of law for children who are born here but their parents are illegal immigrants.

i guess i would also pose this questions to catholics who are against illegal immigrants.  What should a family with children do when the area they live in is so corrupt, so full of evil people and they fear for their families lives?  I know when liberals talk about how inner city people live in these conditions and I always here conservatives say them move away from it.  Go to school, get a better job and get away from those unsafe areas. If an immigrant tries to do it legally, they are put on a waiting list and have to wait for years to come here legally all the while fearing everyday for their families lives.

 

Why is it one person should be expected to get away from their unsafe surroundings and the other should be expected to wait years to get to a safe place to live for their family?

[bardegaulois]

22 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

Residency and naturalization are privileges because who says so? The elected officials?  The government?

The law. All civilized nations have laws. Laws are what make us civilized. Joe Schmo can't just show up at our border and presume he'll get a visa. If we don't have the work to go around, we'll be doing neither him nor our citizens any favours. Moreover, for all we know, he could be a felon or a drugs trafficker.

In the meantime, if you can cite a concrete example of a visa being denied for a frivolous reason, I'd love to hear it.

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, bardegaulois said:

The law. All civilized nations have laws. Laws are what make us civilized. Joe Schmo can't just show up at our border and presume he'll get a visa. If we don't have the work to go around, we'll be doing neither him nor our citizens any favours. Moreover, for all we know, he could be a felon or a drugs trafficker.

In the meantime, if you can cite a concrete example of a visa being denied for a frivolous reason, I'd love to hear it.

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

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Migration and Refugee Services
Migration Policy and Public Affairs

Issue Briefing Series, Issue #1

Why Don't They Come Here Legally?

In the fractious debate surrounding both legal and illegal immigration to the United States, politicians, the public, and pundits alike eventually cycle back to one fundamental question – why don't they come here legally? Why don't the estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants presently in the United States stand in line with the rest of the immigrants seeking to enter lawfully? If our ancestors did it, why can't they?

In the United States today, there are an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants.(i) Sixty percent of these immigrants are from Mexico.(ii) Another 20 percent are from other Latin American countries.(iii) Eleven percent comes from South and East Asia.(iv) Combined, unauthorized workers comprise more than five percent of the U.S. workforce.(v)

Many understandably ask why these millions of unauthorized immigrants did not seek to come to the United States lawfully. Some argue that if their ancestors could do it, so should the unauthorized immigrants in our country today.

Many of our ancestors didn't actually come here through federal "legal" channels – there weren't restrictive federal immigration laws in place at the time

Yet, until the 1870's, the federal government did virtually nothing to restrict immigration to the United States. In most cases, immigrants who arrived to the United States in search of work or a new life simply settled in the country and became citizens after a period of time.vi In 1875, Congress passed the Page Law, restricting immigration of women engaged in polygamy and prostitution, with enforcement provisions particularly focused on Chinese women.(vii) Seven years later, in 1882, Congress promulgated the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, restricting immigration of Chinese laborers.(viii) Congress eventually expanded these restrictions on Chinese immigration to exclude Asian immigrants generally.(ix) However, immigration by those arriving from non-Asian countries was not significantly restricted until the 1920's, by which time many of our immigrant ancestors had already arrived. Indeed, during that period immigration from various parts of the world to the United States was widespread; by 1870, forty percent of the residents of New York, Chicago, and other major metropolitan areas, were foreign-born.(x)

In 1921, beginning with the Emergency Quota Act, the United States began to restrict immigration through the use of national origins quotas.(xi) The quota system was restructured multiple times in subsequent years, leaving some regions of the world at a disadvantage at certain points.(xii) In 1965, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 abolished the quota system, prioritizing instead family-based immigration.xiii Subsequent immigration laws have been increasingly restrictive. For instance, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed to control and deter unlawful immigration to the United States, making it unlawful to knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants and increasing border enforcement.(xiv) Ten years later, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) created penalties for those who had been "unlawfully present" in the country, establishing three and ten year bars to lawful reentry.(xv)

Today's unauthorized immigrants would prefer to live and work lawfully in the United States if they could.

Moreover, according to two well-regarded opinion surveys of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, the large majority of those unauthorized in the country today would have preferred to enter lawfully if they could have. In fact, some 98 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would prefer to live and work lawfully, rather than in unauthorized status.(xvi)

Under current laws, no "line" for lawful immigration to the United States actually exists for the majority of our immigrants.

So, why didn't they just "stand in line" to do so? For the large majority of unauthorized immigrants, no such "line" exists. Under the current immigration legal framework, lawful immigration to the United States is restricted to only a few narrow categories of persons.xvii Most current unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States are ineligible to enter legally with a "green card" as a lawful permanent resident for the purpose of living and working in the country. This is because most do not have the family relationships required to apply for lawful entry; they do not qualify as asylees because of economic hardship as such status is available only to those who are fleeing persecution; and the majority of the unauthorized do not hold advanced degrees and work in the high-skilled professions that would qualify them for work-sponsored lawful permanent residency.

U.S. immigration laws provide three core means by which an immigrant may obtain lawful permanent residency.(xviii) First, a qualified family member in the United States may petition to bring a foreign-born family member to the country lawfully. U.S. Citizens may petition for lawful permanent residency for their spouses, parents, children or siblings. Lawful Permanent Residents in the country may petition for their foreign-born spouses and unmarried children. To do so, sponsors must demonstrate an income level above poverty line and must commit to financially support the sponsored, foreign-born family member so that they do not become a public charge. The foreign-born immigrant, in turn, must meet all other eligibility requirements.(xix) However, there are numeric limitations on most of these family-based categories, resulting in backlogs for entry that often range anywhere from five years to nearly 20 years.

Second, immigrants fleeing political persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion or national origin may seek political asylum in the United States or qualify for refugee status. To do so, they must meet a high evidentiary burden. Even if they do qualify for refugee status, there is an annual cap on the number of refugee admissions to the United States, which is set annually and is typically between 70,000 and 80,000.(xx) Most of today's unauthorized immigrants are fleeing poverty in their home countries, not political persecution. As a result, they do not qualify for asylum.

Third, and significantly, there are various immigration categories for workers to be sponsored by a U.S.-based employer to come to the United States to work and live lawfully. However, these categories are limited to multinational executives and professors; those with advance degrees, the exceptional in the arts, sciences or business; and narrowly-defined, specialized workers.xxi Today's unauthorized immigrants are largely low-skilled workers who come to the United States for work to support their families. They work in the agricultural, meatpacking, landscaping, services, and construction industries in the United States. They fill the ranks of U.S. businesses, large and small throughout the country. Over the past several decades, the demand by U.S. businesses for low-skilled workers has grown exponentially, while the supply of available workers for low-skilled jobs in the United States has diminished.(xxii) Yet, there are only 5,000 green cards available annually for low-skilled workers to enter the United States lawfully.(xxiii) This number stands in stark contrast to the estimated 300,000 immigrants who enter the United States unlawfully each year, most of whom are looking for work.(xxiv) The only alternative to this is to secure a temporary work visa through the H-2A (seasonal agricultural) or H2B (seasonal non-agricultural) visa programs which provide temporary status to low-skilled workers seeking to enter the country lawfully. While H-2A visas are not numerically capped, the requirements are onerous. H-2B visas are capped at 66,000 annually. Both only provide temporary status to work for a U.S. employer for one year.(xxv) At their current numbers, these are woefully insufficient to provide legal means for the foreign-born to enter the United States to live and work, and thereby meet our demand for foreign-born labor.

The Catholic Church believes that current immigration laws must be reformed to meet our country's need for low-skilled labor and facilitate the reunification of families.

The Catholic Church believes that immigrants should come to the United States lawfully, but it also understands that the current immigration legal framework does not adequately reunify families and is non-responsive to our country's need for labor. Our country must pass immigration reform laws to ensure the rule of law in the United States, while simultaneously ensuring that the laws that rule are responsive to our economy's demand for labor, rooted in the reunification of family, and respectful of the humanity of the immigrants in our midst. The Church supports immigration reform that would increase the number of visas available for low-skilled workers and facilitate family reunification.

[bardegaulois]

37 minutes ago, Peace said:

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

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Migration and Refugee Services
Migration Policy and Public Affairs

Issue Briefing Series, Issue #1

Why Don't They Come Here Legally?

In the fractious debate surrounding both legal and illegal immigration to the United States, politicians, the public, and pundits alike eventually cycle back to one fundamental question – why don't they come here legally? Why don't the estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants presently in the United States stand in line with the rest of the immigrants seeking to enter lawfully? If our ancestors did it, why can't they?

In the United States today, there are an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants.(i) Sixty percent of these immigrants are from Mexico.(ii) Another 20 percent are from other Latin American countries.(iii) Eleven percent comes from South and East Asia.(iv) Combined, unauthorized workers comprise more than five percent of the U.S. workforce.(v)

Many understandably ask why these millions of unauthorized immigrants did not seek to come to the United States lawfully. Some argue that if their ancestors could do it, so should the unauthorized immigrants in our country today.

Many of our ancestors didn't actually come here through federal "legal" channels – there weren't restrictive federal immigration laws in place at the time

Yet, until the 1870's, the federal government did virtually nothing to restrict immigration to the United States. In most cases, immigrants who arrived to the United States in search of work or a new life simply settled in the country and became citizens after a period of time.vi In 1875, Congress passed the Page Law, restricting immigration of women engaged in polygamy and prostitution, with enforcement provisions particularly focused on Chinese women.(vii) Seven years later, in 1882, Congress promulgated the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, restricting immigration of Chinese laborers.(viii) Congress eventually expanded these restrictions on Chinese immigration to exclude Asian immigrants generally.(ix) However, immigration by those arriving from non-Asian countries was not significantly restricted until the 1920's, by which time many of our immigrant ancestors had already arrived. Indeed, during that period immigration from various parts of the world to the United States was widespread; by 1870, forty percent of the residents of New York, Chicago, and other major metropolitan areas, were foreign-born.(x)

In 1921, beginning with the Emergency Quota Act, the United States began to restrict immigration through the use of national origins quotas.(xi) The quota system was restructured multiple times in subsequent years, leaving some regions of the world at a disadvantage at certain points.(xii) In 1965, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 abolished the quota system, prioritizing instead family-based immigration.xiii Subsequent immigration laws have been increasingly restrictive. For instance, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed to control and deter unlawful immigration to the United States, making it unlawful to knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants and increasing border enforcement.(xiv) Ten years later, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) created penalties for those who had been "unlawfully present" in the country, establishing three and ten year bars to lawful reentry.(xv)

Today's unauthorized immigrants would prefer to live and work lawfully in the United States if they could.

Moreover, according to two well-regarded opinion surveys of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, the large majority of those unauthorized in the country today would have preferred to enter lawfully if they could have. In fact, some 98 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would prefer to live and work lawfully, rather than in unauthorized status.(xvi)

Under current laws, no "line" for lawful immigration to the United States actually exists for the majority of our immigrants.

So, why didn't they just "stand in line" to do so? For the large majority of unauthorized immigrants, no such "line" exists. Under the current immigration legal framework, lawful immigration to the United States is restricted to only a few narrow categories of persons.xvii Most current unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States are ineligible to enter legally with a "green card" as a lawful permanent resident for the purpose of living and working in the country. This is because most do not have the family relationships required to apply for lawful entry; they do not qualify as asylees because of economic hardship as such status is available only to those who are fleeing persecution; and the majority of the unauthorized do not hold advanced degrees and work in the high-skilled professions that would qualify them for work-sponsored lawful permanent residency.

U.S. immigration laws provide three core means by which an immigrant may obtain lawful permanent residency.(xviii) First, a qualified family member in the United States may petition to bring a foreign-born family member to the country lawfully. U.S. Citizens may petition for lawful permanent residency for their spouses, parents, children or siblings. Lawful Permanent Residents in the country may petition for their foreign-born spouses and unmarried children. To do so, sponsors must demonstrate an income level above poverty line and must commit to financially support the sponsored, foreign-born family member so that they do not become a public charge. The foreign-born immigrant, in turn, must meet all other eligibility requirements.(xix) However, there are numeric limitations on most of these family-based categories, resulting in backlogs for entry that often range anywhere from five years to nearly 20 years.

Second, immigrants fleeing political persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion or national origin may seek political asylum in the United States or qualify for refugee status. To do so, they must meet a high evidentiary burden. Even if they do qualify for refugee status, there is an annual cap on the number of refugee admissions to the United States, which is set annually and is typically between 70,000 and 80,000.(xx) Most of today's unauthorized immigrants are fleeing poverty in their home countries, not political persecution. As a result, they do not qualify for asylum.

Third, and significantly, there are various immigration categories for workers to be sponsored by a U.S.-based employer to come to the United States to work and live lawfully. However, these categories are limited to multinational executives and professors; those with advance degrees, the exceptional in the arts, sciences or business; and narrowly-defined, specialized workers.xxi Today's unauthorized immigrants are largely low-skilled workers who come to the United States for work to support their families. They work in the agricultural, meatpacking, landscaping, services, and construction industries in the United States. They fill the ranks of U.S. businesses, large and small throughout the country. Over the past several decades, the demand by U.S. businesses for low-skilled workers has grown exponentially, while the supply of available workers for low-skilled jobs in the United States has diminished.(xxii) Yet, there are only 5,000 green cards available annually for low-skilled workers to enter the United States lawfully.(xxiii) This number stands in stark contrast to the estimated 300,000 immigrants who enter the United States unlawfully each year, most of whom are looking for work.(xxiv) The only alternative to this is to secure a temporary work visa through the H-2A (seasonal agricultural) or H2B (seasonal non-agricultural) visa programs which provide temporary status to low-skilled workers seeking to enter the country lawfully. While H-2A visas are not numerically capped, the requirements are onerous. H-2B visas are capped at 66,000 annually. Both only provide temporary status to work for a U.S. employer for one year.(xxv) At their current numbers, these are woefully insufficient to provide legal means for the foreign-born to enter the United States to live and work, and thereby meet our demand for foreign-born labor.

The Catholic Church believes that current immigration laws must be reformed to meet our country's need for low-skilled labor and facilitate the reunification of families.

The Catholic Church believes that immigrants should come to the United States lawfully, but it also understands that the current immigration legal framework does not adequately reunify families and is non-responsive to our country's need for labor. Our country must pass immigration reform laws to ensure the rule of law in the United States, while simultaneously ensuring that the laws that rule are responsive to our economy's demand for labor, rooted in the reunification of family, and respectful of the humanity of the immigrants in our midst. The Church supports immigration reform that would increase the number of visas available for low-skilled workers and facilitate family reunification.

Not bad for a think-tank white paper, but I don't exactly see what your point is.

[Norseman82]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Migration and Refugee Services
Migration Policy and Public Affairs

Issue Briefing Series, Issue #1

Why Don't They Come Here Legally?

In the fractious debate surrounding both legal and illegal immigration to the United States, politicians, the public, and pundits alike eventually cycle back to one fundamental question – why don't they come here legally? Why don't the estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants presently in the United States stand in line with the rest of the immigrants seeking to enter lawfully? If our ancestors did it, why can't they?

In the United States today, there are an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants.(i) Sixty percent of these immigrants are from Mexico.(ii) Another 20 percent are from other Latin American countries.(iii) Eleven percent comes from South and East Asia.(iv) Combined, unauthorized workers comprise more than five percent of the U.S. workforce.(v)

Many understandably ask why these millions of unauthorized immigrants did not seek to come to the United States lawfully. Some argue that if their ancestors could do it, so should the unauthorized immigrants in our country today.

Many of our ancestors didn't actually come here through federal "legal" channels – there weren't restrictive federal immigration laws in place at the time

Yet, until the 1870's, the federal government did virtually nothing to restrict immigration to the United States. In most cases, immigrants who arrived to the United States in search of work or a new life simply settled in the country and became citizens after a period of time.vi In 1875, Congress passed the Page Law, restricting immigration of women engaged in polygamy and prostitution, with enforcement provisions particularly focused on Chinese women.(vii) Seven years later, in 1882, Congress promulgated the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, restricting immigration of Chinese laborers.(viii) Congress eventually expanded these restrictions on Chinese immigration to exclude Asian immigrants generally.(ix) However, immigration by those arriving from non-Asian countries was not significantly restricted until the 1920's, by which time many of our immigrant ancestors had already arrived. Indeed, during that period immigration from various parts of the world to the United States was widespread; by 1870, forty percent of the residents of New York, Chicago, and other major metropolitan areas, were foreign-born.(x)

In 1921, beginning with the Emergency Quota Act, the United States began to restrict immigration through the use of national origins quotas.(xi) The quota system was restructured multiple times in subsequent years, leaving some regions of the world at a disadvantage at certain points.(xii) In 1965, amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 abolished the quota system, prioritizing instead family-based immigration.xiii Subsequent immigration laws have been increasingly restrictive. For instance, in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed to control and deter unlawful immigration to the United States, making it unlawful to knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants and increasing border enforcement.(xiv) Ten years later, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) created penalties for those who had been "unlawfully present" in the country, establishing three and ten year bars to lawful reentry.(xv)

Today's unauthorized immigrants would prefer to live and work lawfully in the United States if they could.

Moreover, according to two well-regarded opinion surveys of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, the large majority of those unauthorized in the country today would have preferred to enter lawfully if they could have. In fact, some 98 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would prefer to live and work lawfully, rather than in unauthorized status.(xvi)

Under current laws, no "line" for lawful immigration to the United States actually exists for the majority of our immigrants.

So, why didn't they just "stand in line" to do so? For the large majority of unauthorized immigrants, no such "line" exists. Under the current immigration legal framework, lawful immigration to the United States is restricted to only a few narrow categories of persons.xvii Most current unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States are ineligible to enter legally with a "green card" as a lawful permanent resident for the purpose of living and working in the country. This is because most do not have the family relationships required to apply for lawful entry; they do not qualify as asylees because of economic hardship as such status is available only to those who are fleeing persecution; and the majority of the unauthorized do not hold advanced degrees and work in the high-skilled professions that would qualify them for work-sponsored lawful permanent residency.

U.S. immigration laws provide three core means by which an immigrant may obtain lawful permanent residency.(xviii) First, a qualified family member in the United States may petition to bring a foreign-born family member to the country lawfully. U.S. Citizens may petition for lawful permanent residency for their spouses, parents, children or siblings. Lawful Permanent Residents in the country may petition for their foreign-born spouses and unmarried children. To do so, sponsors must demonstrate an income level above poverty line and must commit to financially support the sponsored, foreign-born family member so that they do not become a public charge. The foreign-born immigrant, in turn, must meet all other eligibility requirements.(xix) However, there are numeric limitations on most of these family-based categories, resulting in backlogs for entry that often range anywhere from five years to nearly 20 years.

Second, immigrants fleeing political persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of their race, religion, membership in a particular social group, political opinion or national origin may seek political asylum in the United States or qualify for refugee status. To do so, they must meet a high evidentiary burden. Even if they do qualify for refugee status, there is an annual cap on the number of refugee admissions to the United States, which is set annually and is typically between 70,000 and 80,000.(xx) Most of today's unauthorized immigrants are fleeing poverty in their home countries, not political persecution. As a result, they do not qualify for asylum.

Third, and significantly, there are various immigration categories for workers to be sponsored by a U.S.-based employer to come to the United States to work and live lawfully. However, these categories are limited to multinational executives and professors; those with advance degrees, the exceptional in the arts, sciences or business; and narrowly-defined, specialized workers.xxi Today's unauthorized immigrants are largely low-skilled workers who come to the United States for work to support their families. They work in the agricultural, meatpacking, landscaping, services, and construction industries in the United States. They fill the ranks of U.S. businesses, large and small throughout the country. Over the past several decades, the demand by U.S. businesses for low-skilled workers has grown exponentially, while the supply of available workers for low-skilled jobs in the United States has diminished.(xxii) Yet, there are only 5,000 green cards available annually for low-skilled workers to enter the United States lawfully.(xxiii) This number stands in stark contrast to the estimated 300,000 immigrants who enter the United States unlawfully each year, most of whom are looking for work.(xxiv) The only alternative to this is to secure a temporary work visa through the H-2A (seasonal agricultural) or H2B (seasonal non-agricultural) visa programs which provide temporary status to low-skilled workers seeking to enter the country lawfully. While H-2A visas are not numerically capped, the requirements are onerous. H-2B visas are capped at 66,000 annually. Both only provide temporary status to work for a U.S. employer for one year.(xxv) At their current numbers, these are woefully insufficient to provide legal means for the foreign-born to enter the United States to live and work, and thereby meet our demand for foreign-born labor.

The Catholic Church believes that current immigration laws must be reformed to meet our country's need for low-skilled labor and facilitate the reunification of families.

The Catholic Church believes that immigrants should come to the United States lawfully, but it also understands that the current immigration legal framework does not adequately reunify families and is non-responsive to our country's need for labor. Our country must pass immigration reform laws to ensure the rule of law in the United States, while simultaneously ensuring that the laws that rule are responsive to our economy's demand for labor, rooted in the reunification of family, and respectful of the humanity of the immigrants in our midst. The Church supports immigration reform that would increase the number of visas available for low-skilled workers and facilitate family reunification.

The idea that "there is no line" is a bunch of hogwash.  I've known multiple people who came here legally and became citizens - including an ex-girlfriend - and I recall one friend emphasizing the word "legally" when describing his immigration story.  Additionally, regarding the various work visas, how much of the reason behind them is for businesses to bring in cheap labor to depress wages?

[Anomaly]

The USCCB's Policy on Migration does not condone or support ILLEGAL "migration", sanctuary cities, or opposes a "Wall".   It does, however, call for accommodations to increase LEGAL and safe migration, lawful obedience by citizens and guests to discourage the dangers of human smuggling, and wide and empathetic gates in the wall. 

The US needs to overhaul its immigration policies to protect its US citizens and foreign guests.  The US should also encourage economic and social reforms in other countries to help them establish prosperous and livable communities that do not encourage dangerous human smuggling, child endangerment, and the breakup of families.  The US has also failed at eliminating illegal employment in the US that limits employee legal protections and depresses wages for both legal and illegal workers.  

I don't see any statement in the USCCB Policy that encourages illegal behavior by anyone or condemns all enforcement of immigration laws.  They state principles for modifications to immigration laws. 

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

cThe idea that "there is no line" is a bunch of hogwash.  I've known multiple people who came here legally and became citizens - including an ex-girlfriend - and I recall one friend emphasizing the word "legally" when describing his immigration story.  Additionally, regarding the various work visas, how much of the reason behind them is for businesses to bring in cheap labor to depress wages?

As the link explains, there is a line for people with certain types of education and/or other qualifications. It is virtually impossible for a low skilled worker from a country like Mexico to enter legally. That is why thousands risk their lives every year by attempting to immigrate illegally.

As for cheap labor, I imagine that many businesses would be motivated by the prospect of paying lower wages, yes. I think this is a legitimate concern that should be considered when thinking about immigration policy.

[Anomaly]

45 minutes ago, Peace said:

As the link explains, there is a line for people with certain types of education and/or other qualifications. It is virtually impossible for a low skilled worker from a country like Mexico to enter legally. That is why thousands risk their lives every year by attempting to immigrate illegally.

As for cheap labor, I imagine that many businesses would be motivated by the prospect of paying lower wages, yes. I think this is a legitimate concern that should be considered when thinking about immigration policy.

Based upon my 30+ years of experience, it is NOT "virtually impossible for a low skilled worker" to enter and work legally. I've employed dozens and dozens.   I think the H2 program needs to be expanded and streamlined.

Illegal workers do mean cheap labor and their employment victimizes the illegal immigrant, depresses low skilled wages for legal workers as well, and is an unfair advantage to unscrupulous businesses.  Unfortunately, illegal/undocumented workers are encouraged by well intentioned "do-gooders" from sincere empathy as well as unscrupulous employers and human traffickers.  The compassionate do-gooders are unfortunately making sure the supply of people to be exploited is plentiful and are contributing to the problem. 

[Ice_nine]

Isn't it comforting to know that regardless of how passionately and logically we defend our position, that it has zero effect on actual policy?

[Anomaly]

1 minute ago, Ice_nine said:

Isn't it comforting to know that regardless of how passionately and logically we defend our position, that it has zero effect on actual policy?

Not really true.  We get to participate, not dictate.

It is comforting to know that I'm not solely responsible for determining and establishing actual policy.   I may be only 9% right, despite my confidence in being a reasonable 99% right. 

[Ice_nine]

I disagree. We only have an effect on things that are closer in proximity

[havok579257]

15 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

The law. All civilized nations have laws. Laws are what make us civilized. Joe Schmo can't just show up at our border and presume he'll get a visa. If we don't have the work to go around, we'll be doing neither him nor our citizens any favours. Moreover, for all we know, he could be a felon or a drugs trafficker.

In the meantime, if you can cite a concrete example of a visa being denied for a frivolous reason, I'd love to hear it.

laws are what make us civilized?  like the law that we are allowed to kill unborn children?  how does that law make us civilized?  or the law we are allowed to execute people we "believe" are guilty, who later turn out ot be innocent, thus executing an innocent man?  does that law make us civilized?

 

citing concrete examples for this is like showing concrete examples of voter fraud.  When there is no investigation into something its kind of hard to prove.  Most on here believe voter fraud exists and we should have a way of screening votes so there is no fraud but are unable to prove that mass voter fraud exists because there is never any investigation into it by elected officals.

 

also where on earth would you get concrete examples from? on what planet would the country who illegally keeps immigrants out record their findings to show that they illegally held people out?  Your asking for documented proof when the only people able to provide the proof are those committing the act.  

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Based upon my 30+ years of experience, it is NOT "virtually impossible for a low skilled worker" to enter and work legally. I've employed dozens and dozens.   I think the H2 program needs to be expanded and streamlined.

Illegal workers do mean cheap labor and their employment victimizes the illegal immigrant, depresses low skilled wages for legal workers as well, and is an unfair advantage to unscrupulous businesses.  Unfortunately, illegal/undocumented workers are encouraged by well intentioned "do-gooders" from sincere empathy as well as unscrupulous employers and human traffickers.  The compassionate do-gooders are unfortunately making sure the supply of people to be exploited is plentiful and are contributing to the problem. 

i wouldn't argue is virtually impossible but it is very hard and a long drawn out process.  So is the father supposed to wait years in line to get approved for legal immigration status all the while fearing for his childrens saftey on a daily basis.  Knowing sooner rather than later he daughter could be kidnapped into sex slavery, or raped or killed.  

 

Yes ideally the people of the country should work to improve their country but let's be realistic, its not going to suddenly happen.  Many officials are to afraid to do anytrhing because they fear for their families lives.  

 

So what is the father supposed to do?  Just smell of elderberries it up and wait in line, for something that is really hard to get into and the wait is years or come here illegally?

Edited January 6, 2017 by havok579257

[Anomaly]

32 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

laws are what make us civilized?  like the law that we are allowed to kill unborn children?  how does that law make us civilized?  or the law we are allowed to execute people we "believe" are guilty, who later turn out ot be innocent, thus executing an innocent man?  does that law make us civilized?

 

citing concrete examples for this is like showing concrete examples of voter fraud.  When there is no investigation into something its kind of hard to prove.  Most on here believe voter fraud exists and we should have a way of screening votes so there is no fraud but are unable to prove that mass voter fraud exists because there is never any investigation into it by elected officals.

 

also where on earth would you get concrete examples from? on what planet would the country who illegally keeps immigrants out record their findings to show that they illegally held people out?  Your asking for documented proof when the only people able to provide the proof are those committing the act.  

i wouldn't argue is virtually impossible but it is very hard and a long drawn out process.  So is the father supposed to wait years in line to get approved for legal immigration status all the while fearing for his childrens saftey on a daily basis.  Knowing sooner rather than later he daughter could be kidnapped into sex slavery, or raped or killed.  

 

Yes ideally the people of the country should work to improve their country but let's be realistic, its not going to suddenly happen.  Many officials are to afraid to do anytrhing because they fear for their families lives.  

 

So what is the father supposed to do?  Just smell of elderberries it up and wait in line, for something that is really hard to get into and the wait is years or come here illegally?

Yes, smell of elderberries it up and wait to do it legally.  You don't think there is risk trying to smuggle your family in and then to live with a quasi-legal status that limits your access to protection?

My grandparents lost family trying to get here and because they could not get here.  I personally know people who have suffered loss leaving family behind, dying while escaping, dying because some stayed, and got here both legally and illegally.  It isn't just jumping in a bus or a two day adventure hike. 

It's not an easy answer, nor will it ever be perfectly resolved.  The solution is certainly not just to drain the pressure for change in a country and bring their problems here where fear turns into hatred and their exploitation turns into anger, hatred, and terrorism.  

What just happened in Fort Lauderdale with multiple people  shot an hour ago?  Domestic dispute, crazy person, terrorism, American or foreigner?   Do the citizen victims have to just smell of elderberries it up if it was an illegal alien migrant?

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Anomaly

[havok579257]

25 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Yes, smell of elderberries it up and wait to do it legally.  You don't think there is risk trying to smuggle your family in and then to live with a quasi-legal status that limits your access to protection?

My grandparents lost family trying to get here and because they could not get here.  I personally know people who have suffered loss leaving family behind, dying while escaping, dying because some stayed, and got here both legally and illegally.  It isn't just jumping in a bus or a two day adventure hike. 

It's not an easy answer, nor will it ever be perfectly resolved.  The solution is certainly not just to drain the pressure for change in a country and bring their problems here where fear turns into hatred and their exploitation turns into anger, hatred, and terrorism.  

What just happened in Fort Lauderdale with multiple people  shot an hour ago?  Domestic dispute, crazy person, terrorism, American or foreigner?   Do the citizen victims have to just smell of elderberries it up if it was an illegal alien migrant?

 

i think the risk in trying to get here illegally and living here illegally is less of a risk than some of the places in Mexico people have to live. Imagine living in a town where you worry everyday that your daughter is going to make it home and not be kidnapped into sex slavery.  Is the father just supposed to smell of elderberries it up and say, well if I have to wait a few years to be even considered for a broken system that if I am turned down for I have no recourse and my daughter is kidnapped so be it.  Also what does the father do who is denied access for nothing criminal.  Or even better he is granted access to work but his family are denied.  Does he just leave his wife and child behind  then and hope for the best?

 

also why would you assume its an illegal alien immigrant that shot these people?  Also why is is smell of ellderberries if the person was an illegal immigrant but not as much if the person was born here?  Does the fact thta someone was born in this country make the killings that less impactful?  I never understood how people who are born 100 miles apart and both kill people are not equal in the regard and one is worse than the other.  Like its bad if someone from america kills someone but if someone from mexico who was born 100 miles away kills someone its that much worse?  Cause that's the way people act.  Bad if an american kills someone but absolutely horrid if someone from mexico(which is not a known criminal) kills someone.  I doubt the victims families would think, "at least an illegal immigrant didn't kill my son.  I mean that at least lessens the loss I feel.)  Never made sense to me.