The President Trump Immigration Thread

[T.Lex]

I have less sympathy for someone who "inadvertently" overstays a work permit.

Fair enough. In my experience, these do fall into 2 groups - those who knew and those who had some intervening event (like marriage) and there was a problem with that part of it.

On the other hand, do you personally know of people legally adopted as children by US citizen parents who were later deported solely because paperwork wasn't filed?

Yes. Again, not many - so any effort to quantify it is pure speculation. I'll readily admit that.

From what I can gather, some of the related facts involved adopting multiple kids from the same family. For at least a period of time, perhaps still, someone under 18 could be adopted but did not receive citizenship. Even young children, upon adoption or within some time period thereafter, had to file certain paperwork before they turned 16 or 18 (I honestly can't remember) to receive citizenship.

But, this was not widely known among adoption groups or attorneys who didn't specialize in this. In many places, adoption attorneys thought that the adoption itself is what transferred citizenship. So, SSN's were obtained, etc.

And, I would agree that these "special cases" are likely down in the 1% range... hence, not the "general" topic of conversation.

Ok, but a policy should account for them - even if it is to give the immigration ALJs some discretion. Such discretion would probably have to be regimented, though, through rule making.

No, it extended far beyond just not deporting them... not sure on DACA, but DAPA made them legal residents for state benefits, driver's licenses, etc. Those were the standing issues the states sued upon...

DAPA isn't even effective, right? I haven't followed that at all, but since it starts with "Deferred Action" I'm not sure it can really make them "legal." If it gives them preference for work visas, I guess it would. But, as you note, implementation of that was stayed?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

DAPA isn't even effective, right? I haven't followed that at all, but since it starts with "Deferred Action" I'm not sure it can really make them "legal." If it gives them preference for work visas, I guess it would. But, as you note, implementation of that was stayed?

Both DAPA and "expanded" DACA were blocked by the Texas District court, upheld on appeal and ruled 4-4 at the SCOTUS, leaving the injunction in place. It did not halt the "unexpanded" DACA program.

Note that DACA is the failed DREAM ACT. Congress did not pass it for his signature, so he implemented it by EO. That alone should make you shudder. Heck, EVEN SNL made fun of him doing so by EO.

[video=youtube;JUDSeb2zHQ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

So this gets back to the point that the constitution allows certain actions, regardless of the propriety of the actions.

Obama, for whatever reason, felt like he had the political capital to take the action. That doesn't mean past presidents didn't have the authority.

I'm more than happy to set aside DACA/DAPA, as I do think those are less legitimate means to an end. As a nation, and a government, we should be able to reach a political solution.

Which would still have to account for the speculatively-quantified situations I've presented. Would allowing some sort of judicial determination avoid the dreaded A-word?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I'm more than happy to set aside DACA/DAPA, as I do think those are less legitimate means to an end. As a nation, and a government, we should be able to reach a political solution.

If by political, you mean legislature passed by the Congress and signed by the President, I absolutely agree.

Which would still have to account for the speculatively-quantified situations I've presented. Would allowing some sort of judicial determination avoid the dreaded A-word?

Well, I believe one, the adoption one, has already been taken care of since 2000:

https://travel.state.gov/content/ad.../acquiring-us-citizenship-for-your-child.html

From link:

The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 was designed to make acquisition of U.S. citizenship easier and to eliminate extra steps and costs. Under the Child Citizenship Act, children adopted abroad automatically acquire U.S. citizenship if:

At least one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen;
The child is under 18;
The child lives in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent;
The child is admitted into the United States as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence; and
The adoption is final.

Because of the Child Citizenship Act, many parents no longer need to apply separately for a child's naturalization.

On the marriage front, IMO, a person must be willfully ignorant (my mother was a foreign born, naturalized US citizen) to not seek out how to naturalize to citizenship... and, how did the spouse even get into the country to begin with?!?!? Already here illegally? Enter illegally? Violate or mis-represent a Visa? Where did they get married? Is there a state in the US that doesn't require a birth certificate for a license? Were they married abroad and the spouse lied upon entry that she/he was just visiting?

The only news stories I've seen of spouses deported were where they were shame marriage... i.e. money for a marriage and path to green card/citizenship. Just color me doubtful on this one... I need some specifics that these people who "didn't know" actually knew what was required and "played dumb" or actively lied.

tl;dr: Adoptees from abroad get automatic citizenship since 2000. The path to citizenship is well defined for foreign born spouses and it's difficult to imagine them acquiring either a legal marriage license or entry into the coutry without being informed, or knowing and lying to get in.

 

[jamil]

Hmmm... sounds suspiciously like a RICO case given it's repetitive nature. I wonder how many contractors/subs in federal pen for 10-20 it would take to make a large dent in that market?

But you have to bring the case. There have been RICO cases brought on the larger companies in larger cities. But who's gonna go through that expense in the thousands of rural counties where maybe a few contractors hire interstate "companies" who provide cheep but illegal temp labor?

It's like I said. You can stop some of it, but can you stop enough of it to matter? That's what I'm saying. We keep talking about "Self-deportation" as if laws and enforcement will be appreciably more effective against hiring illegal immigrants than the war on drugs has stopped drug use.

 

[T.Lex]

If by political, you mean legislature passed by the Congress and signed by the President, I absolutely agree.

On that note, this is an interesting case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service_v._Chadha

Factually, it is an example of how messed up the facts can get in immigration cases. I mean, things that you thought could never happen, do.

Well, a lot of ordinary things happen, too. But, a WHOLE lot of whacky things.

Well, I believe one, the adoption one, has already been taken care of since 2000:

https://travel.state.gov/content/ad.../acquiring-us-citizenship-for-your-child.html

That only applies to kids who were 18 prior to 2000. By then, most practitioners (at least in Indiana) were aware of the problem. The cases I'm familiar were adults by then. The criteria of "admitted in the US as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence" can also be tricky. They weren't admitted as LPR they were being adopted, and the expectation - rightly or wrongly - was that they would be citizens.

On the marriage front, IMO, a person must be willfully ignorant (my mother was a foreign born, naturalized US citizen) to not seek out how to naturalize to citizenship... and, how did the spouse even get into the country to begin with?!?!? Already here illegally? Enter illegally? Violate or mis-represent a Visa? Where did they get married? Is there a state in the US that doesn't require a birth certificate for a license? We they married abroad and the spouse lied upon entry that she/he was just visiting?

None of the above. This is the typical fact pattern. Alien entered and worked legally (or studied). Fell in love with USian citizen, got married. Then: a) thought that settled things (yes, I know, ignorance - like love - is bliss); b) received imperfect advice from a lawyer; or c) submitted paperwork but there was an issue and there was no follow through. People could lie, of course, but my understanding was a genuine lack of understanding about the status and how to change it.

Again, personally, I'm only aware of a handful of cases following those outlines. But enough that I think it is fairly widespread.

The only news stories I've seen of spouses deported were where they were shame marriage... i.e. money for a marriage and path to green card/citizenship. Just color me doubtful on this one... I need some specifics that these people who "didn't know" actually knew what was required and "played dumb" or actively lied.

There is significant middle ground. The processes involved are not always straightforward and evolve over time.

When I was first informed of some of these situations, things were changing even in the realm of what adoptive parents needed to file. This was in the time of more Russian/Ukrainian/SovBloc people coming over as refugees, or trying. It was a different time, so the "refugee" label wasn't as politically charged as it is now.

So, ultimately the issue is where the hard lines are drawn. Upthread, there are some indications that all of these people should be treated the same as the active-criminal types.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

T, several, hopefully short, replies.

Re: Chadha - though that case involved immigration, it was a separation of powers case. Congress may not veto lawful executive branch actions. For example, the regulation veto that will come into play in soon is constitutional only because it requires the president's signature... if it didn't, such actions on plain ol' regulations would be thrown out under Chadha.

Re: Foreign born adopted children who turned 18 on, or prior to, Feb 21, 2001... the legislation considered them and did not include them in the reprieve. It's self-evident in the date cut-off established by the legislation. IIRC, Congress also passed adoption laws to prevent people from "buying" babies from overseas about that time.

Re: marriage. I'm hard-pressed to see any solution you might offer that does NOT turn into defacto automatic LPR rights upon marriage. That is not, nor has it ever been, an acceptable solution. IIRC, the worst case is that the spouse has to leave or is deported based upon THEIR immigration status, but is eligible to re-enter under spousal immigration laws assuming their background doesn't bar re-entry. Ignorance of the laws is not a defense. The bottom line is that marriage does not change your immigration status, only your eligibility to apply for other immigration programs.

Here's a link I'm referencing, which I'll paraphrase as if everything is "kosher", the spouse can apply for adjusting status while remaining in the US. However, if the spouse entered illegally, overstayed a Visa (became illegal) or fraudulently entered (i.e. came in on a tourist Visa with the intent to stay permanently) they will, and should, lose out. These rules are not complicated... and I don't see them as any different than the requirement that the spouse be legally married, just add "and legally present".

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...threaten-marriage-based-visa-green-card.html#

 

[jamil]

This conversation is interesting and all--wait. No it's not.

 

[T.Lex]

T, several, hopefully short, replies.

Re: Chadha - though that case involved immigration, it was a separation of powers case. Congress may not veto lawful executive branch actions. For example, the regulation veto that will come into play in soon is constitutional only because it requires the president's signature... if it didn't, such actions on plain ol' regulations would be thrown out under Chadha.

Yes - it was in response to our thread about executive power. The DACA/DAPA arguments will cover similar ground.

My point is that the executive has broad power. To my knowledge, Congress did not specifically legislate a veto of DACA/DAPA, and is unlikely to.

Re: Foreign born adopted children who turned 18 on, or prior to, Feb 21, 2001... the legislation considered them and did not include them in the reprieve. It's self-evident in the date cut-off established by the legislation. IIRC, Congress also passed adoption laws to prevent people from "buying" babies from overseas about that time.

Which, going by my personal experience, did not happen as often as immigration mistakes in the adoption arena. I haven't seen anything like "buying" kids, yet I've seen several mistakes that have immigration consequences.

There's basically a generation of adoptions (among other issues) that were not fixed by that act. Yet, those people - now adults - are pretty much stuck.

Re: marriage. I'm hard-pressed to see any solution you might offer that does NOT turn into defacto automatic LPR rights upon marriage. That is not, nor has it ever been, an acceptable solution.

Why not, if limited to the otherwise-law-abiding, valid marriage (likely including US citizen children)? It would be a small subset of the already small 1%.

Politically, it would be an easy concession to get a deal done.

IIRC, the worst case is that the spouse has to leave or is deported based upon THEIR immigration status, but is eligible to re-enter under spousal immigration laws assuming their background doesn't bar re-entry.

So here are the options for that family:
a) have the immigrant spouse go "back" to a country they haven't called home for perhaps years, to no job, and likely very little in the way of support structure, and rely on a system that measures progress in months, if not years;
b) continue to stay under the radar in legal limbo, while working and paying taxes and otherwise obeying the law, but in fear that the situation will be found out and the person may be forced into deportation with (as I recall) a 10 year bar from re-entry.

Here's a link I'm referencing, which I'll paraphrase as if everything is "kosher", the spouse can apply for adjusting status while remaining in the US. However, if the spouse entered illegally, overstayed a Visa (became illegal) or fraudulently entered (i.e. came in on a tourist Visa with the intent to stay permanently) they will, and should, lose out. These rules are not complicated... and I don't see them as any different than the requirement that the spouse be legally married, just add "and legally present".

I believe the cases I'm familiar with were primarily the overstaying of a visa, because there was the impression that things were appropriately filed when they were not. Once that scarlet letter status happens, there's really no going back. There's no form to file to fix it.

 

[jamil]

I think it would be more interesting if you guys post photos of hot female border patrol agents along with your reams of never-ending-counterpoints.

 

[T.Lex]

This conversation is interesting and all--wait. No it's not.

LOL

Hey - we're not yelling at each other or anything. (At least, I don't think so.)

Here's my reason for continuing this part of the conversation: I'd estimate that S4L and I would align politically on probably 90% of issues. In fact, I'd say the same about OakRiver. If people who are so similarly aligned on so many other things can't reach common ground on this, then there's no WAY we will as a society, or as a government. Which means the problem will remain.

This conversation is my hope against hope.

 

[jamil]

LOL

Hey - we're not yelling at each other or anything. (At least, I don't think so.)

Here's my reason for continuing this part of the conversation: I'd estimate that S4L and I would align politically on probably 90% of issues. In fact, I'd say the same about OakRiver. If people who are so similarly aligned on so many other things can't reach common ground on this, then there's no WAY we will as a society, or as a government. Which means the problem will remain.

This conversation is my hope against hope.

At least give me some pictures to look at. Then you can carry on with the back and forth all you want with nary a complaint from me.

 

[jamil]

Oh, and another thing. That we're in this situation in the first place is evidence that there is no common ground. I think I've written about that before. I probably should have included photos you could look at while reading.

 

[T.Lex]

At least give me some pictures to look at. Then you can carry on with the back and forth all you want with nary a complaint from me.

They call her Kelly-087.

 

[jamil]

I was gonna rep you for the sparty reference, but apparently Zero rep can be accumulated too much in one place.

you posted the pic. Carry on.

 

[foszoe]

I think a safe/consensus estimate of total illegal population in the US is 15M. (I believe it was 11M in 2005, some projections up to 20M.)

So we rid ourselves of these million, and let's add in another million (speculative, of course) who are active criminals and should be deported. Trump has, I believe, promised to continue DACA, which protects approximately another million. That would leave more than 10M.

That's still a big number.

The
aim is 100% employment rate among illegals. Trump has a committee that has determined we need 10 M to do the work Americans won't do. So the plan is to deport to that level then bus illegal workers to where they are needed and can thus be surveilled.

Don't ask me for sources, I have none.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

But you have to bring the case. There have been RICO cases brought on the larger companies in larger cities. But who's gonna go through that expense in the thousands of rural counties where maybe a few contractors hire interstate "companies" who provide cheep but illegal temp labor?

I don't think you need to prosecute ALL of them... just enough of them to get the message across. A handful in each state. And, for every contractor who is enjoying "enhanced" profits using cheap, illegal labor, I'm guessing there are 4-5 others seething about losing the contracts to "cheaters". I could see this as a situation where a tip hotline or finder's fee rewards would work extremely well.

It's like I said. You can stop some of it, but can you stop enough of it to matter? That's what I'm saying. We keep talking about "Self-deportation" as if laws and enforcement will be appreciably more effective against hiring illegal immigrants than the war on drugs has stopped drug use.

I would agree that like the drug problem, this problem also requires both supply- and demand-side solutions. I think the parallel stops there. If most drug deals occurred at 6 am in a freshly ripened fruit/vegetable orchard/field or construction site, then the vast majority of illegal drugs would be stopped.

Also, unlike the drug cartels, where the wholesale to retail mark-up on drugs is so incredible that they can absorb huge losses, not so with farmers or building contractors. What happens to a farmer relying upon illegal labor if ICE shows up the morning their crop is ripe, deports the illegal laborers and arrests the maggot shipping humans in horse trailers? How many other farmers will risk their crops rotting in the fields (and financial ruin) the next season? How big of an impact would a relatively small enforcement force, say 50 teams of 10 agents (500 total) have if they followed the agricultural migrant labor seasons? Each team doing a bust first thing in the morning, processing the deportees and arrested slave-drivers the rest of the day, then on to the next site the next morning?

Ditto construction sites, with the added benefit that there will always be losing bidders willing to inform on the illegal labor user. How long can a builder sit on a half to 3/4's finished construction site (yes, purposefully timed for the maximum "squeeze" factor), with loans outstanding, and no progress happening because of the ICE SUV parked at the construction site or developing subdivision entrance?

Ditto the commercial meat and poultry processors. Park an ICE SUV at the factory gate until the stench of rotting meat gets unbearable... then head to the next one.

These businesses do not have the margins that drug dealers have... so I think this tide turns pretty quickly on the labor demand side.

On the labor supply side, issue work permit Visas of 6-9 months duration, only issued from country of origin.

I think the biggest chunk of the problem self-corrects pretty quickly.

tl;dr: Legit businesses don't have the margins that drug cartels have. Hit them in the pocket books for using illegal labor and they'll get legal pretty quickly. This solution will require work permits because the need for labor is real. Make it "better" to use legal labor.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They call her Kelly-087.

I would call you such a geek, but that would make me a geek for knowing the reference.

 

[T.Lex]

I would call you such a geek, but that would make me a geek for knowing the reference.

I've been called worse... by better.