Thread: India: Legal immigrants in the US up in arms

Kate - yes.

Let me sum it up by using two simple words/phrases:

a. Self-Reliance
b. Sustainability

Those who argue against those principles tend to care little about their neighbors, fellow citizens, and the environment. The wanton promotion of globalist 'free trade' policies is rooted in corporate greed and elitism.

Originally Posted by Kate

Quote:
Whenever I see comments on any legal immigration article on the sites like NY times or washington post most of the americans cannot distinguish between legal and illegals.


I totally disagree with this statement. It's not that we CANNOT DISTINGUISH THE DIFFERENCE its the ILLEGAL ALIEN SUPPORTERS who refuse to acknowledge that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, thus they deliberately misappropriate the term IMMIGRANT to encompass all of you in their sad attempt to distort the truth about Americans who are against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I agree with you WhatMattersMost. The illegal supporters and open borders advocates deliberately blur the line between the two. That said, there are legitimate concerns about the level of LEGAL immigration, as well as the way in which politicians are attempting to turn 'temporary' guest worker visas into a path to permanent status and citizenship, for example with the H2A visas.

The failed Senate bill would have INCREASED legal immigration by 2-3 times over what it is now, and we are already at an all-time high, allowing nearly 2 million people to come here legally each year. We have the most generous immigration policy in the world, and it's hurting citizens and our environment. It's unsustainable and needs to revert back to traditional levels.

Kate I couldn't agree more. There are hundreds of thousands of HB1 workers in this country. I commute on a train packed with them daily heading for down town Chicago. The levels are not only unsustainable its totally overwhelming.

I am still in transit but have about 45 mins before my next flight and what better way to spend it!

Lots of responses – I am going to try and respond to as many as I can.

I also want to state that I might not agree with the opinions of people on this forum but I do understand the reason and acknowledge the right of the “nativesâ€

Originally Posted by H1b_Holder

The crossing of women in an attempt to give birth to her baby in US does not really help here much. The baby won’t be able to apply her mother’s citizenship till she is 18th yrs old. I recognize that some have used that as an excuse to stay but most courts send both the mother and the baby back to their home county – with an option for the baby to return at the age of 18.

you are obviously quite naive or trolling. This happens everyday here.

I see a lot has been discussed since my last post. No need for you all to start it all up with me again. I will read through the old post and jump in if i have something to add.

Dagmar -

I really don't know what you mean. My son was born in US and I know that I can not use him and his citizenship status to stay in this county if my immigration petition gets denied. If it wont work for me - and legal worker - i doubt it works for anyone else.

On your comment about immigration for only immediate family members: It would mean millions of immigrants, including your own ancestors, would not have been able to become citizens of this nation if this rule was impose some 100 yrs ago.

But it wasn't. America today is very different from what it was a century ago - we have much more crowding and urban sprawl. The laws then were framed by a sovereign nation as it saw fit, but conditions have changed since then, and the laws are subject to change if it serves the best interest of the country.

It would also in effect shut down the family based immigration, as it stands today.

Again, there are people who are alarmed by the sheer numbers of people coming in, and are proposing a moratorium in some cases so that we can catch up and assimilate them. Not everyone wants this, but there is talk.

But it wasn't. America today is very different from what it was a century ago - we have much more crowding and urban sprawl. The laws then were framed by a sovereign nation as it saw fit, but conditions have changed since then, and the laws are subject to change if it serves the best interest of the country.

Hmmm...so what you are saying is because you came here first - you have the right to close the door on people behind you? If you want that then you should also erase what the statue of liberty symbolizes and add a disclaimer at the end of the New Colossus – “Limited time offer, subject to availabilityâ€

Hmmm...so what you are saying is because you came here first - you have the right to close the door on people behind you?

No, that's not what I said. It sounds to me that you are saying that America is not a sovereign nation that has the right to change its immigration laws as times and conditions change. But it is and it does. You are missing a big point here. As Michele Malkin, I believe it was, said: 'we are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of laws.' Deal with it.

America does have a right to regulate and restrict access to its land mass as it sees fit. That's what yours does, and all the others.

It's not me vs. you, it's what the law is and what it ought to be. The only difference between us, is that I get to have a small input (citizen) and you don't (non-citizen).

No, that's not what I said. It sounds to me that you are saying that America is not a sovereign nation that has the right to change its immigration laws as times and conditions change. But it is and it does. You are missing a big point here. As Michele Malkin, I believe it was, said: 'we are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of laws.' Deal with it.

I do understand that America is a land of laws it is the LAW to allow residents to apply for citizenship. It is part of the constitution! Its like you suggesting we remove the right to free speech just because people have started to abuse it.

Free speech is one of the constitutional rights. Immigration is not a right, any more than a driver's license is. Applying for citizenship is governed by conditions.

[Edit] I just went and looked this up to refresh my memory. The Constitution reserves the authority to set immigration laws (what they call 'naturalization') specifically to Congress. Article I, Section 8.