Immigrant Rights

#1, ELLIOT, ITS BEEN 23 YEARS SINCE 1986... WHY HAVENT YOU FIXED YOUR BORDERS???... or is that our fault too?...

#2, were not asking for Amnesty.

#3, your 30 million number is kinda off.

#4, when someone comes to tis country Legally and gains
      residence automatically, YOU only know if  they have
      a "good moral character" when you admit them to the U.S.
      I dont think all of those people continue to be of 
      "good moral character" AFTER they get their green cards.

      WE have been in some time of "probation" for 5,10,20 years,
      WITH this act we would still be under this "probation" for 10
      more years, do the math...

another thing i wanted to add... you blame immigration for this economy... since 2003 (when ICE was formed) you have deported 3 million immigrants... has the economy gotten better since 2003? or has it gotten worse?...

your an American, BUT I can bet you that I've been through more states than YOU (roadtrip)... go down by Arizona or Texas or Florida... go and see all those empty hotel, etc. positions....

just know 1 thing, the person that runs a business NEEDS people to do the job, doesnt matter where their from, PLUS a business owner always looks on to make as much profit as possible... just because your hes American pal; doesnt mean that your gona give him anything.

I have many American friends that have jobs, and that "immigrant" cant get the job because he just DOESNT know...

you live in a WORLD MARKET, competition is survival...

Mr. Cram, i must ask, what is "Fair, proportionate, and honorable" legalization to you? 
From what i know and understand thats exactly what the reform is. Many of undocumented people in the U.S have skills necessary to bring up the fallen economy we have here today. Once legalized, they can contribute any of their talents and rise our economy to the greatest of its potential. Many students that are undocumented have gone to school with there own money and no help from the government to become nurses, doctors, teacher, lawyers. A long grueling process all done to be later refused to use their B.A's, PHD's, or Masters when the rate of graduating college students of a degree or higher being so low. 
No, I believe its Fair, to give people that lived here so long an opportunity to contribute to their community 
I believe it is Proportionate to the 10-20 million undocumented people that already understand and know the culture of the U.S.
And I believe it is honorable because honestly, who wouldn't respect all the million people proving to people like you that they deserve a chance in this country with all the hard work they have done. Once they become documented they will do all they can to the country that allowed them to experience the American dream.

P.S- only because the majority of immigrants are Mexican, doesn't mean that there are other immigrants from different races only being turned down. That just shows what kind of character you have and your opinion towards anyone who is Mexican.

1) I never said I was a "European"; I am also slightly Native American Indian (Weskarini Algonquin).  Neither do think of people only in terms of race, as you apparently do by profiling me. 

2) I have worked the same jobs as migrants--virtually every aspect of cherry picking, harvesting and packaging. I am also a war vet. Do not automatically assume that because I am American that I am lazy.
3) I actually lived in Austin Texas for ten months, ending last summer (08) and the jobs were less than plentiful; in fact, there was a homeless person at every intersection.
4) You know as well as I do that deporting illegal immigrants does not stop them from coming right back.
5) No one above has blamed illegal immigration for the economy
6) I agree that migrant workers lured in to work in the US should be taken care of by their employers and that the government should ensure their well-being, but that does not give them the right to become citizens. Try staying in Europe, Russia, Japan, or any other developed country on a work visa and see how far you get these days (as for the first two mentioned, yes I have been there). Immigration into the US will always be allowed to occur, but it must be equally restricted between countries of origin, and everyone must be documented. That, as you know, is the big problem we face. It has nothing specifically to do with Mexicans as a people, but the vast border which happens to be shared with Mexico and the fact that it is constantly infiltrated by various criminal organizations, including the Russian Mafia. We simply need accountability for our (and your) safety.  In that I agree with Dave Bennion.  I only disagree with his logic. 
7) Who's asking for good moral character? If being a citizen required a person to be decent there would be no country to speak of. That's just human nature unfortunately. All I ask is that the Immigration process itself is fair and honorable and that the percentages are equal and fair between world countries.  Immigration lawyers run a lucrative business—they are also exclusive because the forms are language-specific and require a specialty.  In Detroit they cover French, Arabic, and Spanish.  In Grand Rapids, Michigan, only French and Spanish.  Chicago is sometimes Chinese and Spanish, other times something like Persian, depending on your lawyer.  for obvious reasons, the East Coast has more lawyers who can cover more ground (and I apologize to Dave Bennion for suggesting that he was exclusive, but usually this is the case).  The process should have nothing to do with excessive fees or prejudices and should be the same for everyone.
On the other hand, we also need to start setting limits and let people know when they have exceeded their visas, etc.

8) This is all just my opinion. I wouldn't worry about the government following and wisdom, as they have not done so in many years.


Good luck in your efforts

I would suggest that you read the news concerning President Obama's aunt, as well as investigate food subsidy programs--I have heard this from immigrants themselves, at least in the state of Michigan.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/04/bha_takes_heat_for_housing_obamas_aunt/


Also, look up any immigration lawyer's office and tell me if it lists at least two or more languages.  You say "very few"; then why are such a variety of languages covered, and why do they vary between lawyers?  Certainly, if the client knows very little English, a mastery of languages greatly helps you in your cause.  Perhaps I have misunderstood... The moral character issue is laughable--I guess sort of like when a police officer asks if you have been drinking or something?  Maybe they should be asking the citizens already established if they have "good moral character".  We would probably lose the entire Senate.
Keep us posted.

"Very few of the immigration forms are in a language other than English."

Isn't a requirment of becoming an American citizen to have a working knowledge of the English language? (Other than those long-resident older applicants and those with mental or physical disabilities as introduced in 1990)

 boost economy by loosing 11,000000 million jobs,
 american when there belly hurt will work for less wages also!!!!
 how student work thru college, USA will spend 800.000.000,000
 with no return, Obama would spend your with know return !!!
 how next year what you going to do ,print more money !!!!
until it has know face value ?these people have country too go back
 to ,after they depleted are !!!

^lll lol Mr. Bennion, your hilarious. 

"loosing 11,000000 million jobs,
 american when there belly hurt"

Rick, thank you for the deep belly laugh. I almost "loosed" my coffee as I read your post.

Yeah, even I laughed a little myself...

Funny, immigration only seems to be a "human right" when your talking about moving to the U.S.
How about we start talking about opening up immigration to Haiti, Iraq, Mexico or Russia?
Russia is in dire need of immigration! Their population is decreasing markedly.
Immigration to any country is not a "right."
Clinton and Bush didn't enforce our immigration laws very well over the last 16 years.
We only have to look to Wall Street and the Banks to see what happens when we don't enforce our laws.
Hopefully President Obama will.
He did promise us "change" after all!

here's a clarification on comparisons to Germany.
First, I was for quite a few years on H1B status before having to shell out over $10k to pay for my green card; my employer, a public university, certified that I was the best person hired for the job but did little to support me.
Now, my sister works for a head hunter agency in Munich, recruiting Indian and Russian engineers and computer scientists. She tells me that she gets those folks a green card within a week or so, and it costs a few hundred euros.
Anybody switching from H1B to green card has to contend with delays, loss of documents, incompetent legal advice from HR offices or lawyers because US law is so complex. I wish naturalized born folks out there would be a tad more compassionate, especially on change.org.
And I am not complaining, because I had it easy in comparison to millions who don't have papers.

Keep speaking the truth Dave Bennion! You're a compassionate, caring person and I support everything you stand for. I'm so tired of the xenophobia and racism out there these days. We are built on immigrants and all immigrants deserve a fair chance to thrive in this country.

The taxes paid by the illegals who would be granted amnesty would hardly offset the ungodly demand they have placed on our economy. And, isn't anyone wanting to know just exactly how many American jobs would have to be forfeited to the newcomers who have absolutely NO allegience or love for this country at all?
Some years ago, in Fresno, CA, the Fresno Bee ran a report about Mexicans being nationalized. The only man that they interviewed spoke loudly for them all. He said that he pledged his allegience to America but "in my heart I was saying 'Viva Mexico'".
The very thought of giving amnesty to illegals is beyone rational thought from the very git go. America can have no net gain and will rather pay dearly for such ignorance.
There is no zenophobia or racism with this train of thought. It's simple math. Allowing illegals to be rewarded for their crime and then paying them to overthrow our country is insanity gone to seed. If anyone thinks that the illegals are here to be assimilated and to become "Americans" are entirely decieved and need to come out from under the bridge and see the light of reality.

Mr. Porter, stick to the subject here. We are talking about immigration reform in the U.S. Not in other countries. When and where they have an article writing about the issue you believe other countries face with immigration, then we will respond with our view of it.But for now understand this, there is a reason why other countries are not getting as many undocumented people as the U.S. 
Many of them have problems that the U.S doesn't have (other then the economy). Many have over population (like china) and would like to have an opportunity to live a successful life and have a larger family (one kid per couple in china). Others have wars that most people would like to get away from (Iraq). And as for Russia, if it has anything that the U.S has i would gladly love to go, but sadly there is nothing there thats really interesting other then site seeing (Of course i am speaking for myself, no offense to those who like Russia). Whatever the case, the U.S is a safe place that has liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course the U.S faces immigration problems... many want what it promotes.

P.S- Any one has a right to go and live where ever they please. Thats my opinion. Take it or leave it, thats for you to decide.   

Mr. Minnick,Of course the news will pinpoint the people that will say the most controversial thing on the air, it brings ratings. What is ignorant and stubborn is to not be open and to listening to other peoples stories. To just assume that one person speaks for the thousands that want to be legalized is just plain sad. I can name you 100 people that would love to be Americans. This doesn't mean they would forget where they are from, but they will be proud to pledge for the U.S any day.

Ooopppsss... i meant to write listen, not listening. 

Seriously some of you people are so full of hate. Being a product of the Immigration Reform of 1986, I can tell you 1st hand that a boost in the economy is excatly what an Immigration Reform would create now. Take my family for example. I am talking about 8 aunts & uncles, including my mom & dad. Each of those households have built their own business over the last 20 plus years. Not only have we been able to earn a living for ourselves, but with those business we have created employment opportunities for hundreds of people. Guess what happens when people get paid? They go spend it at stores nearby. Regardless of whether you are legal, receiving any kind of aid (which we never did, when legal or illegal) you still gotta pay rent, purchase gas, buy clothes for your kids, eat, buy furniture, cell phones...the list is endless. Our business supplies? The more we sell our product the more we can consume from stores. We are all connected, whether your narrow mind likes it or not. Fact is some of you people have no aspiration to do much more with your life but the basics. Guess what? when you come from a country where your life is in danger day in & day out ( like these 3rd world countries many of us come from) you learn to value the opportunity of being in America. Sure, I know & realize that most of you dont give a hoot about anyone else but yourselves, but open up your eyes. This whole rhetoric of sending them back where they came from is ridiculous. If you studied any history at all you will know that Mexicans probably have more claim in the land than you do, you will also realize that immigration, legal or illegal increases to the degree of the US involvement in the country's affairs. Take El Salvador, for example, where we are from. Even to this day, the US is heavily involved in the business of El Salvador, altering its economic system by having the $ as the currency of the country.
I do agree with some of your points, in regards to public aid. I do wish the system would go back to charging immigrants for whatever aid they use prior to legalizing themselves, like they did for some programs back in the 80's. Like I mentioned, we never received any aid, even to this day, mainly because we were aware that once legalized we would have to pay back the Medi-caid back. So my dad would keep a low paying factory job, while he & my mom built their business, so he could get health insurance for us. And yes, I can just imagine your replies to this, " we are the exception to the rule", how convenient that when you feel its appropriate you use your experience of viewing an immigrant on tv and apply it to all. :)
Anyways, I do hope a reform is passed. I believe more positive will come from it.

Hey there, thought I'd throw in an Aussie perspective - we're pretty similar in some ways to the USA, being primarily a nation built by migrants (with all due respect to the indigenous people living here before Europeans stole their land and destroyed their culture). I confess I don't know much about the specifics of American migration legislation, but I work in the government here in Australia and there are some common issues we face (the views here reflect my own personal opinion). 
In any discussion about immigration, I think it's important to distinguish between the different circumstances of potential migrants, and the reasons why they seek to migrate. In Australia (and in the USA too I imagine), refugees are assessed on humanitarian grounds - basically, if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin then in many cases they will be owed protection, and granted permanent residence. Whether or not they speak the local language is irrelevant - in relatively privileged societies like Australia, USA, Canada, etc. they should be provided with a reasonable level of support upon their initial arrival, eg. torture and trauma counselling, interpreters, housing assistance, medical treatment, etc. This is both a legal and a moral obligation that we owe to other human beings who desperately need a safe place to live. 
There is an increasingly strong argument that climate change refugees should also be accepted on this basis (there are several islands in our region which are sinking because of rising sea levels, caused by global warming melting the ice caps). 
Migrants sponsored by a close family member (eg. parent or spouse) should potentially be accepted on the basis of their relationship to a local citizen or permanent resident. Like refugees, they shouldn't need to meet an English language requirement or show that they have any particular skills or qualifications - they have family ties to the country, and helping to reunite families is just the decent thing to do. 
As for everybody else, I think we're entitled to be a bit more selective. For example, so-called skilled migrants to Australia are expected to speak English reasonably well and demonstrate that they will make an economic contribution to society for a number of years to come (they usually need to be less than 45 years old and have meaningful qualifications). This helps to make sure that they won't become an economic burden on the community. There are some special categories for people with unique talents in music, the arts, sport, etc. 
Ideally, they should be sponsored by a local employer to show that they have a job lined up, and that they have the necessary skills to work in an industry where there's a current shortage of existing skilled workers. In Australia, we have acute shortages of tradespersons, nurses and doctors - we're also about to begin granting visas to some Pacific Islanders to help pick fruit, as farmers are finding it hard to locate anyone to do this locally. 
In all cases (including refugees) applicants for migration need to meet strict health and character requirements (ie. screening for tuberculosis and other serious medical conditions, war crimes, terrorist activities, etc.) I don't think anyone would seriously argue against these checks. 

I think a country should be allowed some discretion as to which migrants they will accept, but genuine humanitarian cases and people with close family connections should generally be treated favourably. In Australia, everybody who isn't a citizen needs to hold a valid visa when they arrive, and meet certain criteria if they want to remain permanently. Managing and regulating their entry is made easier by the fact that it's hard to reach our shores without somebody noticing - we intercept a few boats from Indonesia every now and then, but mostly people arrive by plane and need to pass through immigration control at the airport. 
For the USA, the shared border with Mexico makes it potentially more difficult to regulate, but I do think Americans are entitled to know who is in their country. If they're found to be able to contribute economically, or if they have a compelling humanitarian need or family connection, then it would be fair and reasonable to offer them the security of permanent residence. The issue which I think is most concerning is that there seem to be so many people living in the USA without any official record, and this leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. 

Hey there, thought I'd throw in an Aussie perspective - we're pretty similar in some ways to the USA, being primarily a nation built by migrants (with all due respect to the indigenous people living here before Europeans stole their land and destroyed their culture). I confess I don't know much about the specifics of American migration legislation, but I work in the government here in Australia and there are some common issues we face (the views here reflect my own personal opinion). 
In any discussion about immigration, I think it's important to distinguish between the different circumstances of potential migrants, and the reasons why they seek to migrate. In Australia (and in the USA too I imagine), refugees are assessed on humanitarian grounds - basically, if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin then in many cases they will be owed protection, and granted permanent residence. Whether or not they speak the local language is irrelevant - in relatively privileged societies like Australia, USA, Canada, etc. they should be provided with a reasonable level of support upon their initial arrival, eg. torture and trauma counselling, interpreters, housing assistance, medical treatment, etc. This is both a legal and a moral obligation that we owe to other human beings who desperately need a safe place to live. 
There is an increasingly strong argument that climate change refugees should also be accepted on this basis (there are several islands in our region which are sinking because of rising sea levels, caused by global warming melting the ice caps). 
Migrants sponsored by a close family member (eg. parent or spouse) should potentially be accepted on the basis of their relationship to a local citizen or permanent resident. Like refugees, they shouldn't need to meet an English language requirement or show that they have any particular skills or qualifications - they have family ties to the country, and helping to reunite families is just the decent thing to do. 
As for everybody else, I think we're entitled to be a bit more selective. For example, so-called skilled migrants to Australia are expected to speak English reasonably well and demonstrate that they will make an economic contribution to society for a number of years to come (they usually need to be less than 45 years old and have meaningful qualifications). This helps to make sure that they won't become an economic burden on the community. There are some special categories for people with unique talents in music, the arts, sport, etc. 
Ideally, they should be sponsored by a local employer to show that they have a job lined up, and that they have the necessary skills to work in an industry where there's a current shortage of existing skilled workers. In Australia, we have acute shortages of tradespersons, nurses and doctors - we're also about to begin granting visas to some Pacific Islanders to help pick fruit, as farmers are finding it hard to locate anyone to do this locally. 
In all cases (including refugees) applicants for migration need to meet strict health and character requirements (ie. screening for tuberculosis and other serious medical conditions, war crimes, terrorist activities, etc.) I don't think anyone would seriously argue against these checks. 

I think a country should be allowed some discretion as to which migrants they will accept, but genuine humanitarian cases and people with close family connections should generally be treated favourably. In Australia, everybody who isn't a citizen needs to hold a valid visa when they arrive, and meet certain criteria if they want to remain permanently. Managing and regulating their entry is made easier by the fact that it's hard to reach our shores without somebody noticing - we intercept a few boats from Indonesia every now and then, but mostly people arrive by plane and need to pass through immigration control at the airport. 
For the USA, the shared border with Mexico makes it potentially more difficult to regulate, but I do think Americans are entitled to know who is in their country. If they're found to be able to contribute economically, or if they have a compelling humanitarian need or family connection, then it would be fair and reasonable to offer them the security of permanent residence. The issue which I think is most concerning is that there seem to be so many people living in the USA without any official record, and this leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. 

With reference to Kurt's point that every child born on American soil automatically becomes a citizen, I agree that it seems to create problems. Just to clarify our own law, children born in Australia automatically acquire citizenship if at least one of their parents was a citizen or a permanent resident at the time of their birth. Children born to parents who are both temporary visa holders (or who have unlawful immigration status) automatically acquire the status of their parents at the time of their birth. If they remain in Australia until their 10th birthday then they automatically acquire citizenship, even if neither of their parents has become a permanent resident. 
In relation to the massive difference in population size between Australia and the USA, our population at last census count was only about 23 million I think - but keep in mind that the only really habitable areas to live (unless you like camping with the blowflies in the desert) is along the southern and eastern coastline. We have a chronic shortage of water (although this is partly because we mismanage it so badly and waste ridiculous amounts by giving it away to industries like meat and dairy, mining and cotton - we also log native forest in our water catchments, reducing the amount we can collect in our dams). My point is that Australia's migration intake needs to take into account the environmental situation we find ourselves in - unfortunately, some people disguise their xenophobia with a pseudo-environmental argument, but its nonetheless true that we will need to radically improve our efficiency in using natural resources and invest far more heavily in services like public transport and housing if we are going to increase our population. And at some point there will need to be a limit, probably at about 30 million. 

In relation to the 2nd and 3rd points raised by Kurt, guest workers in Australia generally need to show they are skilled in an occupation in demand (the fruit pickers I referred to previously are specifically employed in regional areas where there just aren't enough people willing or able to do the work). With the exception of "working holiday" visas (limited to people under 31 years old from reciprocating countries), you can generally only get a guest worker visa if you are sponsored by an Australian employer, and you are only allowed to work for your sponsor - guest workers have to be paid a minimum salary level which is higher than the wage that Australian workers are entitled to under industrial awards. The sponsoring employer is also potentially liable to pay for any medical treatment that a guest worker or their family member requires in a public hospital, and their return airfare. It's therefore more expensive to sponsor and employ a guest worker than to employ an Australian, meaning that they don't really "compete" here - even the local workers' unions are overwhelmingly supportive of the program, as well as the National Farmers' Federation (NFF members are often more redneck and xenophobic than people living in the cities, but they're beginning to see the economic benefits brought by foreign guest workers). I do think that guest workers should only be employed in jobs that can't be filled locally, and would agree with you that there's a problem if locals who are willing and able to do the job are being replaced by guest workers. 
As for the boat arrivals from Cuba, Kurt's comment suggests that they're automatically assessed as refugees on the assumption of real or perceived persecution under the Communist regime. I'd have thought they would in fact be assessed on an individual case-by-case basis - maybe someone can clarify this? If a person is in fact found to be a refugee by definition, then it seems just that they should be granted permanent residence if they arrive on American soil, or in Australia for that matter - though surely not every single Cuban is the victim of persecution? (I've heard that gays and political dissidents are treated pretty badly in Cuba, but even people from Zimbabwe aren't automatically considered to be victims of persecution - some of them even seem to support the Mugabe regime) 
In Australia, our lawmakers have controversially altered our borders specifically to deal with unauthorised boat arrivals. Some of our islands on the northern and western coastline have been excluded from the Australian migration zone, just so that asylum seekers can be intercepted before they have technically entered Australian territory and detained in an offshore facility - this inhibits their access to legal representation and effectively denies them a legal right to protection in Australia even if they are found to be refugees. 
Under the previous government of John Howard, some of the boat arrivals were detained in Nauru for many years - even though they were assessed as refugees and unable to be repatriated, we had to negotiate with other countries to settle them (such as New Zealand, Canada and certain Scandinavian countries) just because John Howard didn't have the compassion to offer them protection in Australia. I think at one stage there was even talk with the USA of exchanging our Afghanis for your Cubans. The policy is designed to deter people smugglers operating in Indonesia who put people's lives at risk by sending them out in leaky fishing boats. But it only seems to punish the asylum seekers themselves, who have typically already suffered so much trauma and abuse. 
Since the change of government in 2007, John Howard's brutal policies have gradually been replaced with a more humane approach - boat arrivals are still processed on Christmas Island, outside the migration zone, but they're processed much more quickly and typically granted permanent residence in Australia if they're assessed as refugees. We're talking about 160 people each year, a tiny number in relation to the 11 million refugees that the UNHCR estimates there to be worldwide. 
I'd be interested to know how many Cubans seek asylum in the USA each year. 

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 11,487 Cubans entered the United States in fiscal 2007 at the Southwest border, mainly in Texas, almost twice as many as in 2005.
The U.S. Coast Guard intercepted 2,861 Cubans crossing the Florida Straits in smugglers' speed boats or home-made craft during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007But another 4,825 made it to the United States, where by law Cubans -- unlike other nationalities -- are almost automatically allowed to stay if they make it ashore.

Dear Friends:Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible, because it's time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one.In fact make this world a better place to live and promote peace instead of weapons,lets promote friendship and love instead hate and war,lets step towards the world peace,happiness,respect for each other views and values.Do not put your values into pawn shop and make it Value Pawn.lets restore the classic American way of life for you and your neighbour.Lets perform our duties and enjoy our rights.Lets give each other place to breath and be ourself.Lets be proactive instead reactive.Lets get proactive in Peace,education,economy,immigration,health care,and most of all faith and wisdom,brotherhood.

To:
Janeth Herrera let me clear it up for you! Most come from South of our border.


In March of 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated the undocumented
population ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals, a number
supported by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). Using data
from March of 2004, PHC estimated

      Country of Origin Percent of all illegal immigrants
      Mexico 57%
      Central America (and to a lesser extent, South America) 24%
      Asia 9%
      Europe and Canada 6%
      Other 4%


According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of
origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows:

      Country of Origin Raw Number
      Mexico 5,970,000
      El Salvador 470,000
      Guatamala 370,000
      India 280,000
      China 230,000

The Urban Institute, a research group in Washington, D.C., estimates
"between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the
United States."

You could  tell these 'potential' immigrants, "Don't get your hopes up.  I might be a long long wait."

LOS ANGELES -- Approximately 230,000 undocumented Koreans were residing in the United States as of January 2007, reports the Korea Times. The figure is based on the report Illegal Alien Resident Population by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The number of undocumented Koreans has decreased by some 20,000 from the year earlier, yet Korea ranks number seven in countries with the largest number of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Mexico is the leading country of undocumented immigration, with 7 million, or 59 percent of the U.S. undocumented population. El Salvador came next with 540,000, followed by Guatemala with 500,000, and the Philippines and China, each with 290,000. Koreans made up 2 percent of the U.S. undocumented population.

The United States has seen a growing number of undocumented immigrants - 11.8 million last year, up from 11.3 million in 2006 and 8.5 million in 2000. Brazil, India and Guatemala showed the biggest increase in undocumented immigration to the United States. By state, California had the most undocumented residents, with 2.8 million, or 24 percent of the state's immigrant population, followed by Texas with 1.7 million and Florida with 1 million.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5a920a0eb9bc5730dd8cc6916f09dd40

Janeth Herrera

Mr. Avery could you please provide a link to these claims. I'd like to read more about it.



"Pew Hispanic Center"

You know  Janeth Herrera in the future if you want people to "Reply" to your comments,you should allow it instead of just  "Send a Compliment"

What you propose will increase immigration.  Why is that a bad idea?  Well other than, not wanting the US to turn into Mexico . . .

Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes.

Almost all immigrants will start out earning very low wages, and unless they get additional education or training, they will likely be paid that way indefinitely. Unfortunately, our tax system is set up to keep low-income people from paying taxes. Depending on how many kids and how many deductions they have, many families will pay ZERO income taxes on the first $20,000-30,000 of wages (above what a couple both earning full-time minimum wages brings in for a year). A large 10 percent bracket after that keeps additional taxes low. If they're eligible for the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit, they may actually receive money back from the government without paying a cent in to it. Poorer individuals are also far less likely to have health insurance, a retirement fund, or backup savings in case of job loss. In other words, the level of government resources required for social security, health care, welfare, unemployment compensation, etc. will be increased heavily for a group that pays little or no taxes.

The national identity and language is disappearing. The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multi-culturism.

The United States used to be referred to as the great "melting pot" because immigrants adopted the customs, language, and culture of America. Thus, we were no longer Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Mexican-Americans, etc. but instead were simply Americans. Unfortunately, this is quickly becoming a memory as schools and politicians continue to push "multi-culturism", which motivates immigrants to maintain their own language and customs rather than assimilate into American society. How many times have you seen groups of immigrants traveling in packs while speaking their own language. When is the last time you opened a set of instructions written in English only? While we should do everything to help immigrants learn the language and get used to living here, the entrenched multi-culturism is creating divisions that only increase with more immigration. Consider the mass protests that took place in this country when the immigration issue started to heat up. The protests featured hoards of Mexican flags, anti-American slurs, and a Spanish version of the national anthem. Is this what is needed to bring the country together?


Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market.

Despite the improving economy, we still have millions of citizens out of work. Whether it's lack of skills or lack of opportunities, many of those citizens will be forced to take the low-paying unskilled jobs. If you pump in millions of new workers seeking jobs, it decreases the amount of work available. Plus, the laws of economic supply and demand will push the wages down far from what they would be.

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/immigration.htm

Today in America we are in dire straights economically. Many people voted for President Obama, wanting change, but were not in total agreement of the democratic platform. I think one of the fastest short term boosts to our economy is to employ citizens with a mandated use of the E-Verify system for all employers.  It is a proven effective way to weed out illegal immigrants. I am a total believer in legal immigration, and we are generous, in these times, to allow one million plus legal immigrants yearly. I also support the continued use of E-Verify. This is one of the only government operations that are now working at a 98% + success rate. It would be terrible to remove a program that would not only help our economy, but could stem the flow of illegal immigrants, and aid Homeland Security in securing our borders. This has been effective in Arizona, to the degree that some illegal immigrants are returning home because of lack of work. Using this method would create new jobs for many citizens, which is needed quickly in this downturn in our economy. This would also take some pressure off of our many programs that assist low wage families. We have many Americans without work, and we have to look within to make improvements. Like in Australia, I think we need put a stop to the anchor baby situation, by one parent having citizenship.  I have tried to post in Dave’s bog in the change.org site only once before.  He continues to force feed his ideas, and that is his prerogative. I just was not aware that the change.org site was designed in this manner. I thought that this site was for open dialog, so we can move forward in a positive manner. It seems that the people who take differing ideas take a beating on this site.    Dave, I respect you for fighting for your cause, but I do not believe the immigration issue on change.org is the place, as your voice is very different from many that still have hope in the economic rebuilding of our great country. We can continue to be the melting pot for all people who arrive here by legal means. That seems simple and fair.

How much more are we going to be asked to giveup and/or pay for? There is already $50m to support "starving artists" just to mention one part of the pork. I rember immigration "reform" was a big issue in an article on this site when Kennedy was being considered for the Senate. The arguments have not changed since then, and the comments profered still apply.

it is essential the eVerify be mandated as part of the Economo=ic Stimulus package.

I'm curious about the eVerify system you have in the USA: particularly, the extent to which employers can be penalised for employing people illegally, and if so, whether this is enforced effectively.
Personally, I think the potential for exploitation of illegal workers is more concerning than whether or not they're "stealing" jobs from locals. But either way, it seems more effective to establish deterrents for the employers, rather than to crack down heavily on the illegal workers themselves. They're typically vulnerable people who are desperate for work of any kind to support themselves and their families. Illegal workers often place themselves in situations of enormous personal risk. 
Illegal workers often take jobs that locals don't want to do themselves (eg. labourers and fruit pickers), but which are essential to the economy. That said, it's still important to regulate their employment, for their own protection (fair wages, occupational health and safety, etc). 

In the last couple of years, Australia has been getting better at protecting employees (legal or otherwise) from exploitation. Below is an extract from the Australian immigration department website (http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/compliance/employer-obligations/about.htm): 

Employing an illegal worker is a criminal offence
It is a criminal offence under the Migration Act 1958 for a person to knowingly or recklessly:allow an illegal worker to workrefer an illegal worker for work with another business.Individuals who are convicted of these offences face fines of up to $13 200 and two years imprisonment while companies face fines of up to $66 000 per illegal worker. The penalties are higher where an illegal worker is being exploited through slavery, forced labour or sexual servitude.Who are illegal workers?
Illegal workers are non-Australian citizens who are working in Australia without a visa or who are in Australia lawfully but working in breach of their visa conditions. Work means any work including unpaid work.Who is affected by these new offences?The offences apply to employers, labour hire companies, employment agencies and anyone who allows illegal workers to work or refers illegal workers for work. This includes taxi owners who bail or lease their taxi cabs to drivers and some people who rent or lease rooms to sex workers.The offences also apply to businesses that operate informal labour referral services such as backpacker hostels that organise harvest work for backpackers.Higher penalties where an illegal worker is being exploitedWhere an illegal worker is being exploited through slavery, forced labour or sexual servitude, the maximum penalties are five years imprisonment and fines up to $33 000 for individuals and $165 000 for companies per illegal worker.The terms slavery, forced labour and sexual servitude are defined in the Criminal Code Act 1995.Forced labour means the condition of a person who provides labour or services (other than sexual services) and who, because of the use of force or threats:is not free to cease providing labour or services
oris not free to leave the place or area where the person provides labour or services.Sexual servitude is the condition of a person who provides sexual services and who, because of the use of force or threats:is not free to cease providing sexual services
oris not free to leave the place or area where the person provides sexual services.Slavery is the condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition results from a debt or contract made by the person.

Angry white dudes bully their way into the majority on a thread.  That's never happened on the internet before.  (And I say this as an angry white dude.)

Look, the name of this site is change.org.  I blog here because I'm not happy with the way the last 8+ years have gone with immigration law and policy.  I also have some unconventional views on patriotism, citizenship, and international relations.  That means that if your idea of positive change in immigration policy is building a higher wall and deporting millions of immigrants, this is probably not the place for you.  Unless you're looking for a fight, in which case this is definitely not the place for you. 

I am interested in reaching a wide audience, not just preaching to the choir.  I'm interested in debating policy issues.  But if you are here posting links to FAIR or Alipac or whatever, chances are you're not here for productive discussion. 

There are hundreds of other places for people who think George Bush was too easy on immigrants to vent their frustrations.  Maybe I should just start posting in Spanish and then my problems would be solved.  

I concede that part of the issue is the emotional level this debate is often conducted on, on both sides.  It's comparable to having a blog about abortion, or if people had been able to blog about race relations during the 1960s.  The maddening thing about this debate and about those was that anyone who cared enough about the issue to get involved felt so deeply that they were in the right that it was almost impossible to find any middle ground. 

Who has put up a blog intended to facilitate reasoned discussion between pro-life and pro-choice groups?  Between Focus on the Family and the LGBT rights movement?  That would be a pipe dream and would quickly devolve into something nasty.  (The notable exception is Charles's Peace in the Middle East blog: http://middleeast.change.org/
But Charles is more even-handed than me, and half the comments seem to be left by one person.) 

So that's why I moderate these threads, and try not to take it personally, but I have a certain vision that others may not share.  You're welcome to start your own blog and I encourage you to do so (... if you feel you currently don't have enough arguments with strangers ...)

Campbell Macknight How's the Muslim problem going?

I live in So. Calif.  I sometimes feel like I live in Mexico.  Every repair man, delivery driver, tree trimmer, city parks worker, road crew, house cleaner, etc. are Mexican.  I get frustrated because 50% of them don't speak English and half of the other 50% speak very little English. I have a couple of friends who teach grade school and each room not only has to pay a teacher but a teachers aide as well, who speaks Spanish. I get advertisements in the mail that are written in Spanish. Sometimes I think about moving to Mexico because the beaches are prettier and there are more Mexicans crowding the So Calif. beaches in summer time than there are Mexicans on the Baja beaches.  I do most of my shopping online now because I got sick and tired of shopping around department stores listening to screaming Mexican babies in strollers having tantrums while their mothers ignore them.  My neighborhood is safe but less than two miles away, there are a growing number of young Mexican men who think it's cool to be gang members and carry guns.  75% of our County jail population is made up of these young men.  Yes, I know that California was probably once an extension of Mexico.  So maybe we should just make the two places one great state.  Then we won't have an immigration problem.   

oh Lorene Judd, your words just break my heart... California is a border state, everywhere you go to be near the border, your gonna  see more diversity, Every nation in Europe, around its borders you can see the mixing of coltures colide.

"listening to screaming Mexican babies in strollers having tantrums while their mothers ignore them."... oh i guess you havent seen Americans venture into Europe and vacation spots in South America, they act like they own the place and they better than everyone else.

think and treat people individually please, a really BIG PLEASE... at least those mothers dont leave their kids with a nanny and see them twice a month. plus they dont drown their kids and stuff them in the garbage. neither lose their job and kill all five of  their kids. dont get nasty...

oh and YES, im coucasian... as white as they get. you look kinda brownish...

sorry if i offended anyone, i didnt mean it like that. just a little upset when i read some people's comments

Campbell Macknight you do have to admit that Australia has a past history of problems with Muslim immigrants.

"Muslims in Australia have already been the subjected to racist attacks. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, Muslim women wearing the chador in Australia were spat upon, physically assaulted and had scarves ripped from their heads. Mosques were firebombed and Islamic schools and other community facilities vandalised or deluged with hate mail. Following the Bali bombings, the Howard government has further inflamed the situation by targeting Muslims as “terrorist suspects” on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. The Australian Federal Police and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation raided homes of Indonesian Muslims in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, seizing property and interrogating terrified families at gunpoint."

This is a very dear topic to my heart. In 2005 I ran for 4J School District in Eugene,Oregon. http://www.nadiasindi.blogspot.com

I was very concerned about our immigrante childern who attend schools in Oregon and the USA.

Last election on 2008, I ran for Lane County Commissioner Seat. http://www.nadisindi.110mb.com.

One of my constituents quetioned my stand on the illegal aliens law! Here is the dialogue I had with him!


1."Ms. Sindi doesn't respect our laws concerning illegal aliens"

Sir, I do have the HIGHEST respect for the Law. Especially when it comes to illegal aliens!

I do believe law & order made to be followed, to regulate our Boarder. It must NOT be broken!

2. "she has a problem with the "deportation from Latin American communities throughout all of Oregon".

I do NOT have a problem with deportation from Latin Americans communities!

When I ran for the 4J School Board in 2005. I was speaking of a specific incident that happened at Whiteaker's neighborhood. That's the only reason I stated the fact of the raid on the Latin communities.

-In a world fraught with conflict, it breaks my heart to see children who are not sufficiently supported in their efforts to grow up as healthy, happy human beings. Two huge obstacles are race and class conflict, barriers to all students trying to learn how to be whole human beings.-

you can check my blog: www.nadiasindi.blogspot.com


Again I thank you for shedding some light on my statement!

Mr. Raybell,

You stated: "I consider myself both a nationalist, and a liberal.  This is the kind of thing that gives liberals a bad name."

Before you attack me, Please read this!


"In spite of the lip service which George W. Bush paid to “comprehensive immigration reform,” in the last years of his administration federal policy turned harshly anti-immigrant, and the abuses carried out by the ICE and at privatized prisons where immigrants awaiting deportation were held shot up sharply. A new study by the Migration Policy Institute (read a related article here) shows that resources which ICE got with the specific purpose of going after dangerous criminal immigrants were massively diverted to rounding up immigrants whose only crime was being in this country without legal authorization. ICE agents, part of the scores of enforcement teams that have been set up around the country to go after people in their homes and neighborhoods have themselves complained about being quotas of immigrants to round up. The Migration Policy Institute points out that such quotas encourage agents to seek easy targets rather than going after dangerous people. So they round up people in on the street, at bus stops, even coming out of medical care facilities."

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8107/

This site is not meant to be a platform for nativism.  Take it somewhere else.

Thread closed.