The problem is that these people do not even recognize that they have committed a crime.....

The are so close minded that the concept of the law the respect to the legal frame, the respect to something, does not exist.

They are not saying: I am a begger and a failure in my country of origen and I apologize the break the law but I have to eat.

They are not saying that, they are challenging the systems as if the system owns them something.

Or these people is crazy or they have some social issues which made them unacceptable in their countries of origen.

Wow Roger. Really? I apologize for the crime I committed when i was 5 months old. How can I come here and say I was a "begger and a failure" in a country I do not even know?! Your argument makes no sense. I am not saying "the system" owes me anything either, all I am asking is for justice, which is supposed to be what this country stands for. You cannot condemn someone for a decision someone else made for them. We are not crazy people, rather the hardest working people in this country. I speak for myself, I have overcome so many obstacles and have always been a hardworker. If you want to talk about crazy, crazy is someone who is trying to criminalize someone who was brought here not by choice but by chance. I did not choose to come here. If I knew my country and if I had grown up there, believe me I would much rather be there, but it's not that simple. My whole life was been here in the United States. Be careful with what you post here because all you are doing is coming off as ignorant.

Randy, please visit the USCIS website and this one:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128999.html

to get a better understanding of the process of becoming a legal resident.

Nancy cannot become a legal resident. If she leaves to try to apply for legal residency from Mexico she will receive a 10 year ban from the U.S. Even after the ten years there is a good chance she will be denied. There is basically no "line" for her to get behind.

Please inform yourself before making these type of comments. Gaining legal residency is impossible for many.

Do you restrictionists comprehend the irony with which we "pros" view your "rule of law" arguments? No, I don't suppose you do. You appear to care nothing for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with its due process guarantees that apply to all persons. You just make up your minds that someone like Nancy or her parents are "criminals" and that's all there is to it, right? So, you would prefer to turn this country into a police state with a gulag of prisons for people who don't fit your notion of "citizen" - is that it? Well, believe me, that label is arbitrary, and it always has been.

At the moment, I'm reading Mark Weiner's Black Trials: Citizenship from the Beginnings of Slavery to the End of Caste.  It's interesting to see how the notion of citizenship evolved in the U.S., and  specifically how it has been used to keep African-Americans from full participation in civil society. (plus ca change...) So, there has always been this historical connection between racism & xenophobic fears of an "other" and the notion of "citizenship" in American life. As Weiner says, throughout our history, "America held two political values we now see as contradictory but which— we tend to forget— coexisted comfortably side by side. The first is egalitarianism, and the second is white racial supremacy." Unfortunately, your comments are evidence that this contradiction in values rages on in present-day America.

No one suggests that due process should be denied.  However, when the situation is obvious the necessary action is also obvious and due process is not denied if the decision and appeal are expedited.  Justice delayed is justice denied so I advocate that all immigration decisions should be made within 24 hours of apprehension and appeals should be limited to one week.  This especially true where there is a prima facie case that speaks for itself.  Appeals criteria should be simple and rigid so liberal judges don't get carried away.  Personally I would exclude family separation as a basis for an appeal.  Minor children, regardless of citizenship, should accompany their parents if they are deported.  Adult children who are illegal should also be deported when they are apprehended.  Adult children who are birthright citizens can, of course, make up their own minds.

. randy this menatality is what moves us backwards not forward . the reality of the situation is that every human being should have the oppurtunity to better themselves. if we put the money we've wasted in immigration into documenting and simplifing the residency the the children suffering would stop why is that so hard too understand .if you do the math we would benefit

How could a five month old refuse to follow her parents? Did you even read the story?
I find it offensive that you use such a painful piece of history to justify your argument. If I am not mistaken five month old babies can't talk or walk.

Also, not all immigrants, and in this case, undocumented students are Hispanic. Just read the rest of he DREAMer stories.

It seems your issue is not with "illegal" immigration, it's just a case of Hispanophobia, or perhaps even just a fear of the Other.

I'm am sincerely sorry you live under such baseless fear.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty absurd to analogyze Nancy's appeal to the Nuremberg defense (The Nuremburg defense relates to war crimes - look up its uses in Wikipedia). She was not a soldier following orders, but a small child who was too young to understand what was happening to her. So, are we going to criminalize children now for the acts/choices of their parents? (as if our jails aren't full enough!)

There are a number of racist assumptions in your comment: the reference to "Mexico Norte" and the comment about Mexican people bringing disease, crime, etc. (as if they are vermin and not human beings). I found it very offensive, so I thought of flagging it. However, I would like to give Nancy an opportunity to respond. The dreamers are very eloquent in speaking for themselves (and I may be a bit too quick on the trigger). But, as far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but racist dreck...take it elsewhere!

What a piece of work.

I'm not surprised you see this as "racist dreck" since you have been unable to see these discussions in any other light.  This discussion has never been about individuals but I believe there is a cogent argument regarding the conditions in Latin American countries that drive them to make the journey to America.  I have never thought of any of the peoples of the world as vermin.  The words in Emma Lazarus's poem are an entirely adequate description of those poor souls who sought refuge in a better place or at least a place where there were better opportunities.

You can characterize the term "Mexico Norte" in any way you wish but the demographic trends will show you where we are headed.  Mexifornia is already on the brink.  I wasn't intending to suggest that illegal aliens necessarily bring disease and crime with them, although there are certainly a significant number of examples of the latter in California prisons.  I do suggest that if they were unable to fix their own country, the chances are pretty good that they will re-create here the very conditions they fled Mexico to escape, not unlike any other immigrants in that regard.

Do you really believe that you can transplant millions of Latinos from impoverished countries and not have an adverse impact on America?  The more there are the more of them, the more U.S. will resemble their homelands with whatever problems those countries had that caused them to leave.  It is a cultural problem in many cases.

I would welcome an explanation or analysis of why you believe that will not be the case.

Lisa wrote, "I may be a bit too quick on the trigger."  Indeed you are.  Count to ten before you respond and ask yourself "Is there another non-racist point of view that I am ignoring?"

that is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Nancy is a child, a young woman. Not a war criminal. It's mighty easy to point fingers at others - what have WE done here in the US to help this situation? Absolutely nothing. Instead, we have instituted a whole new class of "Jim Crow" laws that serve to create a second class citizenry that is nearly guaranteed to provide us with low-cost, low-skilled labor for at least another generation.

Yet we can't even be happy with that particularly horrific repeat of history:  No, once we've created this servant class, we're so stupid that we have to deport them all back to their countries of origin! Way to collapse the economy, folks - send all your workers away!

See NBC news tonight for how Hispanics are transforming America.  I'm sure this will avoid all the negatives but might be worth watching anyway.

We all admire Nancy's persistence and courage in dealing with her problem.  As I have indicated, this discussion is not about individuals.  It is about the much larger problem that many refuse to recognize perhaps because they have a bad case of myopia, the same kind that characterizes the Congress in its failure to pass real immigration reform, rather than the kinds of bills introduced by the Senate in 2006 and 2007.

It doesn't really help to hear only side of a discussion which is what Lisa seems to advocate.  We continue to excuse her immature kneejerk reaction that sees everything in racial terms and takes the most cynical attitude one can toward the motivation of others.

Everyone who is deported is an individual.  Their U.S. citizen family members are individuals.  This policy debate is all about individuals. 

From my perspective, the ones trying to split up families and jail asylum seekers, then tell them "it's for their own good," have the market cornered on cynicism.

I don't agree with that assessment.  The policies adopted by the Congress and DHS are not directed at nameless individuals but rather at the whole of illegal aliens.  Cynicism arises when one misjudges the motives of others, has a sort of tunnel vision, and myopia that inhibits his or her ability to read another opinion with some degree of empathy.  That is when no effort is made to understand or discuss the real issues at hand one can hardly claim to be lacking cynicism. I learn a lot from these discussions and hope that others make an effort to understand points of view that differ from their own.

Of course everyone who is deported is an individual as is everyone who is imprisoned but the broader issue is the public policy that is not focused on individuals by name or in any other way.  It is focused on a broad class of individuals such as immigration applicants, illegal aliens, chain immigrations,etc. 

You are giving us a lesson on empathy after comparing a five-month old baby to a Nazi ... that is rich.

Nancy, I suppose that the application would require information about where you lived or where you were born with the latter being the most likely question.  So with an established address in Mexico upon your return, your knowledge of where you were born, etc.,  there should not be a problem.  I do not advocate lying about anything on an application.

Clearly you do not know what the process really is. You saying "there should be no problem" is so wrong and vague. What are you basing your thoughts on?

I was hoping you would enlighten me if you know the facts and the nature of the questions asked on the application.

Also I would be interested in what positive proposals you might have that would accommodate your needs while helping to abide by a rule of law and enabling this country to stabilize its population.  Everyone tends to ignore the "elephant in the room" when it comes to immigration and tax policy.  That elephant is population growth.  Even the most ardent environmentalists avoid talking about the elephant but they should know that the UN has identified the principal source of global warming as people, too many of them.  Americans, according to the UN, produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita every year.  If our population doubles by the end of this century as now projected, that will mean another 6 billion tons of pollutants annually at the present rate.  Even if, by some technological miracle we were to be able to reduce the per capita output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the present unacceptable level of output as our population balloons by another 300 million people.  Here in the Southwest, water is a critical resource.  Los Angeles,  and Las Vegas have already felt the pinch.

The U.S. is a microcosm of the world where population is spinning out of control exceeding the carrying capacity of the land.  The fisheries, timberlands, rain forests, arable land and other finite natural resources are all under duress.  Why is it the argument always gets diverted into a discussion of racism, xenophobia, restrictionism,and bigotry rather than the real issues I have outlined above.

The problem is not with the individual like yourself but with the totality of the effect of more people on our standard of living and quality of life.  I place high value on those important characteristics of life in America.  I do not want any tax or immigration policy that will threaten them. 

I am sure you understand that.

"Can this really be done or will the application ultimately force her to disclose that she was in the U.S. illegally for some period in her life?"

Someone who lies to the government to get an immigration benefit and doesn't qualify for a waiver will be barred from the country.  USCIS, ICE, and the immigration courts don't look kindly on people they think have lied to them.

It wouldn't be hard to trigger their suspicions as someone who lived her whole life in the U.S. 

The environmental argument falls apart under scrutiny.  It amounts to, essentially, "americans cause more damage to the environment than other people, immigration to the U.S. produces more americans, hence immigration is bad for the environment." 

On this line of thinking, these "environmentalist nativists" should be up in arms about Utah's high birthrate.  But I've never heard them mention it for some reason. 

Unless you plan to exterminate the people you are deporting, the planet's total population remains the same regardless of migration flows.  FAIR and the other Tanton outfits talk about the U.S.'s high output of carbon emissions, but I don't see them on the front lines of environmentalism pushing to implement Al Gore's ideas.  This is environmentalism by fraud, nativism in sheep's clothing.  It's also a way to avoid taking responsibility for Americans' high consumption rates.

For instance, the Sierra Club has consistently rejected attempts by nativists to take over that organization and change it into a restrictionist front.  http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=379

Your fraudulent ideology has probably convinced people elsewhere who didn't look too closely at what was actually being said.  Don't count on a free pass here.

I don't know whether I can be done or not that's why I was asking Nancy to enlighten us.  I do not advocate lying under any circumstances but if the question is not asked on the application, then there is no need or obligation to bring up the fact of one's life in the U.S..

Actually the environmental argument is very sound.  Of course a Mexican comes to the U.S. because he expects to earn more, consume more and coincidentally pollute more.  Mexico's rate of emissions is half that of the U.S..  If they stay there, that rate will remain reasonably constant, if they come here it will double.

Bennion wrote,"From my perspective, the ones trying to split up families and jail asylum seekers, then tell them "it's for their own good," have the market cornered on cynicism."

No one is trying to split up families.  Parents who are deported must take their minor children, regardless of citizenship, with them or be guilty of child abuse. Those who have reached age 21 may choose to stay or go with their parents.  It is entirely up to them if they are birthright citizens.  If they choose to split their families and not accompany their parents, that is their choice as adults.  But the onus is on them not U.S. law or regulations.  Pretty simple concept when you think about it!

As far as asylum seekers are concerned, I believe that if they are legit there is a provision in the law that permits them to apply as refugees.  Not everyone is a legit refugee from tyranny or oppression. 

Bennion wrote, "Someone who lies to the government to get an immigration benefit and doesn't qualify for a waiver will be barred from the country.  USCIS, ICE, and the immigration courts don't look kindly on people they think have lied to them.

It wouldn't be hard to trigger their suspicions as someone who lived her whole life in the U.S. "

As I stated, I do not advocate lying about anything on an application.  The question is:  Does the form require one to disclose the fact that they spent many years in the U.S. illegally.  If it does, one has no choice.

Don't immigration judges tend to be lenient in cases like Nancy's?

Gordon, you are basically suggesting to play it by luck. Well Nancy, don't you look and sound American enough? That is basically the question you are asking. They won't be suspicion if you have lived here! Well guess what? It doesn't work like that. Immigration judges are touch on immigrants whether they have a case like me or not. 
Sad but true.

"No one is trying to split up families.  . . .
As far as asylum seekers are concerned, I believe that if they are legit there is a provision in the law that permits them to apply as refugees."

These issues have been discussed at length on this blog.  The fact is that families are being split up daily and legitimate asylum seekers are jailed and deported daily.

http://immigration.change.org/blog?category_id=24309

http://immigration.change.org/blog?category_id=2942

And an immigration judge can't grant relief that doesn't exist under the law.  That would apply to many, if not most, DREAMers. 

"No one is advocating a gulag of prisons."

But strangely, that is what we have.

"We do not advocate lengthy detention."

Yet we see people in immigration prison for years at a time. 

Either you don't actually know what is happening to immigrants in this country or you're attempting to mislead people as to the goals of your movement.

I have suggested to Secretary Napolitano that privately-run detention centers should be paid on the basis of their throughput rather than the number of detainee days.  Suddenly one would see expedited processing, immigration decisions and repatriation.  Just assign more immigration judges to these facilities, given them a narrow set of criteria for a successful appeal, and require the initial decision to be made within 24 hours with appeals limited to one week.  The detention centers would then have a whole new ballgame.

I am not trying to mislead anyone.  The facts are plain to see for anyone who is interested.  Most people agree that we have at least 12 million illegal aliens in this country.  That is a fact and it is hard to believe how that misleads anyone.

I know from news articles what is happening to illegal aliens and even legal immigrants and do not condone any bashing of these folks.  I also know many people have been killed, maimed, or robbed by illegal aliens--some of them with 20 priors.  What kind of a system is that?

The goals of the movement I subscribe to is largely oriented toward a stable population.  Why anyone has to feel it is necessary to avoid that topic and immediately slide into other issues is beyond me unless they also have an agenda which is not necessarily in the national interest.

What we should be doing is accepting each other's concerns at face value and look for solutions like the one I suggested above.

When called out for comparing a five-month old baby to a Nazi, he digs in and defends his position.  Stay classy, Mr. Johnson!

Bennion wrote, "The environmental argument falls apart under scrutiny.  It amounts to, essentially, "americans cause more damage to the environment than other people, immigration to the U.S. produces more americans, hence immigration is bad for the environment." 

It is the UN which has stated that people cause pollution and global warming.  If the U.S. is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases per capita, it makes no sense to allow our population to increase further compounding the difficulty of finding a solution to our share of the problem.

Thank you so much for your support Janeth! My whole life I have done nothing else than live by the book and values that as an AMERICAN were inculcated in me. I have worked hard, paid taxes, gone to school and become an Honors student. I am getting ready to apply to Grad school actually and am very excited for that next big step. Mr. Johnson, I think you are in the wrong place. Again, my post and this forum are about the DREAM ACT, something that still has not even passed, and which will be completely different when it passes than it is now - rest assured that the logistics will indeed include tighter borders and security, in fact, most of DREAM ACT beneficiaries support that. The DREAM ACT is by no means an amnesty, but rather an adjustment to legalize people who just deserve to be legalized, who are AMERICAN in every sense, except that they lack that 9 digit number. From all your posts I can see you really believe the DREAM ACT would benefit some sort of criminal group, maybe because you haven't read the conditions of eligibility where it clearly states that future beneficiaries would have to have a clean record. The DREAM ACT will not induce a higher flow of immigrants because not only will we have tighter borders but the DREAM ACT will be only for students who have already lived here and gone to school here, not newcomers. Ignorance is not mispelling something here on a post, ignorance lies on people who are quick to point the finger without giving them a chance and learning about them. I will cut it here because I have other people to write to, it is impossible to respond to your million posts that you write throughout the day perhaps because you have no other thing to do than to bash people who pose a "threat" on you.
Have a great night.

EXACTLY Mr. Johnson, her intellectual talents would be a good asset to the U.S as well of the other undocumented students that advocate for the Dream Act. The Dream Act will allow these students contribute to the communities in every shape and form. These are not just students that just want to get legal status, these intelligent individuals just want a chance to use their degrees.

As for your accomplishments, i agree, i know nothing of them. What i meant from that statement is accomplishments that no one can take from her or touch her on because its her experience and hers alone, not yours, not mine. 
The ignorance i refer to Mr. Johnson is the experience of her situation. You have been given citizenship the minute you were born and was raised in the U.S. You had the opportunity to apply for financial aid, cal grants, to get your drivers license and work your first job. You gained independence. Please tell me your definition of an American Mr. Johnson, with out the fact of being born in the U.S. Give me characteristics of what an American should be.

Nancy has all what i conceder what an American is.

Yes Nancy was born in another country BUT was raised here almost all her life. She is an American, not an "alien" to a country she only knows and remembers. She has experienced life in the U.S and is accustom to its culture. She might have been taught her parents native language, culture, some history when she was a bit older. But understand her first language is english, she received her education in the U.S and has pursued higher education as well.

Go ahead and pick at my spelling, i really don't mind. I know i have horrible spelling and i would appreciate any help to correct it. 

As for my passion that you mistakenly define as ethnocentric bias, i proudly wear it on my sleeve Mr. Johnson . I fight and support for social justice, of all kinds. So don't be so quick to judge me as a closed minded individual. I'd like to think i have an open mind and give a lot of thought to peoples arguments. And i also let people know if i am persuaded or not.

Janneth Herrera wrote, "You had the opportunity to apply for financial aid, cal grants, to get your drivers license and work your first job. You gained independence."

Actually I didn't have financial aid or cal grants.  I put myself through college working on a dishwasher at a hospital and working summer jobs in canning factories and grocery stores.  Of course, it might have been easier and cheaper at that time but it didn't seem that way to me.  And I spent time doing stoop labor too, picking potatoes, and cucumbers, and cherries, although I didn't have to stoop to pick those.  We all have our hard luck, hard work stories but as I stated in my first post here, I am sympathetic to Nancy's plight but am looking for a solution to the larger problem which involves millions of illegal aliens.  What is your proposed solution?

As I have also said, this is not about individuals but a much bigger problem that begs for an answer that does not create incentives for more border violations.  If we had a solution for this larger issue, I would be the first one in line to say Nancy is one who should be given priority for citizenship, especially since her first language is English and since she appears to be well assimilated except for her immigration problem.

Spelling:  conceder = consider

I am glad to hear you have an open mind.  That is very important if we are to come to understand each other.  I would be interested in your detailed definition of social justice.  There are many concepts of social justice ranging from Communism to Neo-liberal principles that reflect a desire to give to one person without having to work for it, what another has to work for without receiving -- in a word redistribution of wealth.

I appreciated you civil response to my post.  Civility is important in this world and I commend you for that quality even though you may disagree with my positions.

Finally, I would like you to give some thought to the following things that guide my thinking on immigration issues:

1.  The "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero.  In other words, the more there are of us the less there is for each of us -- killing the goose that laid the golden egg, as it were.  How far down that road do you think we should go?
2.  Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per year per capita.  If we add 300 million more people by the end of this century, we will be adding another 6 billion tons of pollutants to the environment annually at the present rate.  Even if by some technical miracle we were able to reduce our per capita output by half to that of Mexico, we would not have made any progress on reducing the present unacceptable level of output.  Is that social justice?
3.  The more human being there are the more we tend to encroach on wild life habitat resulting in the extinction of species.  Do animals also deserve social justice?  Do we want to turn our national monuments, parks and forests over to developers to accommodate a burgeoning population?  Is that social justice?

The UN is working hard to help countries like those in Sub-Saharan Africa to curb their fertility rates which are higher than 7 as opposed to a replacement level of about 2.1.  India, with its huge population, is teetering on the brink of a disaster if it does not get its fertility rate down to close to the replacement level.  Even with China's draconian one child per family edict, it continues to grow.  Is that social justice?  I have posted below some quotes which I think are relevant to how you should think about these problems.

Mr. Johnson said: "Actually I didn't have financial aid or cal grants."Just to be clear i didn't say you had any financial-aid, just that you had the opportunity apply for it.
As for my views of social justice, it honestly ranges from woman's rights, African american rights, Asian rights, Hispanic rights, Arabian rights, Pakistani rights, Iranian rights, immigration rights, to gay/lesbian rights.I frown upon segregation, discrimination, stereotypes, racists and sexes remarks. I can go on but lets get to the point of this whole debate we have going on Nancy's page. She and others like her tell their stories to bring awareness of the Dream Act, NOT the immigration reform. 

And i have read and thought about your arguments about immigration and honestly i strongly disagree. To give you one of my opinions is that i get a sence of extermination of immigrants in your arguments. People die and people are born. You can't just stop that cycle. If you would like to discuss more about it then e-mail me and others to ask why we don't agree with you. But please, i ask you, don't post your arguments on Immigration on Nancy's page if it has nothing to do with her story or the Dream Act.And i can imagine that you might say that immigration issues go along side with what happened to Nancy and Dreamers like her, but i will save time and tell you that she did not come here recently and that Dreamers have been in the U.S for a long time. They must have been 16 years or younger when they have arrived in the U.S, at least stayed 5 years in the U.S (continuously), graduate from a U.S high school with a diploma or G.E.D, have good moral character and no criminal record, and pursue high education OR enlist in the military. These students are not your typical undocumented immigrants, these are educated students, well rounded, free of crime (excluding the accusation you and others give them for coming here illegally) and beneficial to the economy. 

Thank you Edward for your support and for your positive comparisons. I hope one day it will happen, actually I know it will!
=]

This is a good opportunity to dust off one of my favorite quotes, the one about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel.  We had enough in the last 8 years of conservatives charging the reality based community with disloyalty as Bush drove the nation to war and the economy to ruin.  That dog won't hunt.

And I'm a little confused by the "ethnocentric" charge.  I'm what the census calls non-Hispanic white (kind of a silly distinction, if you ask me).  My clients come from all countries and ethnic backgrounds.  I don't see the basis for your claim.

He called you ethnocentric too?!
i guess its his favorite word to use for people that support Dreamers and argue against his views.  

If the shoe fits, put it on.  I use that term only because I think it is accurate.  If you can prove otherwise, I am willing to listen.

My ethnic heritage is Welsh, English, Scottish, and Scandinavian.  Are you alleging that I am promoting a secret Anglo-Nordic agenda that is subtly undermining the American way of life?  What you are saying makes no sense at all.  I guess you'll have to spell it out for me.

Dr. Bennion, I guess it must be your calling as an immigration lawyer that is causing the difficulty.  While you must, if you are going to follow that path, do the best you can for immigrants, it is clear that you have made it not only your calling but your casus belli in the immigration wars, that turns you against your fellow countrymen who in large part wish for secure borders and more limited immigration quotas for all of the reasons I have cited.  I guess you'll have to spell out your rationale for that behavior which makes no sense to me.