Skip to comments.
AMNESTY by BUSH - The Truth about Section 245(i)
March 19th, 2002
| Compiled by Sabertooth
Posted on 03/19/2002 1:49:07 AM PST by Sabertooth
AMNESTY by BUSH The Truth about Section 245(i)
|
H.R.1885
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (Engrossed House Amendment)
SEC. 607. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CLASSIFICATION PETITION AND LABOR CERTIFICATION FILINGS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking `on or before April 30, 2001; or' and inserting `on or before the earlier of November 30, 2002, and the date that is 120 days after the date on which the Attorney General first promulgates final or interim final regulations to carry out the amendments made by section 607(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002; or'; and
(B) in clause (ii) by striking `on or before such date; and' and inserting `before August 15, 2001;';
(2) in subparagraph (C), by adding `and' at the end; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
`(D) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for classification described in subparagraph (B)(i) that was filed after April 30, 2001, demonstrates that--
`(i) the familial relationship that is the basis of such petition for classification existed before August 15, 2001; or
`(ii) the application for labor certification under section 212(a)(5)(A) that is the basis of such petition for classification was filed before August 15, 2001;'.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (114 Stat. 2762A-142 et seq.), as enacted into law by section 1(a)(2) of Public Law 106-553.
Amend the title so as to read `An Act to enhance the border security of the United States, and for other purposes.'. LINK
This is the relevant provision of HR 1885 to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Code. All it does is extend application deadlines under 245(i).
Here's a LINK to H.R.1885 in its entirety.
|
INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filingsSection 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment. Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization. LINK.
Last week's 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals. Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.
|
How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)? (from INS website) Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.
You might need section 245(i) if you:
- Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
- Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
- Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
- Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
- Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
- Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
- Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
- Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
- Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."
LINK
Again, what we see here are more instances of how Section 245(i) applies specifically to Illegals. Extending a deadline for Illegals to "adjust status" means that more Illegals will be staying in the U.S., but they will be legalized for a fee of $1,000. That's Amnesty. Some, I'm certain, will prefer not to believe their lying eyes.
|
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: 245i; amnesty; illegals; immigrantlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 481 next last
To: hobbes1
Going about it this way, is faster and cheaper than Having that Crack Staff at the INS going after them to deport them, only to have them return. This problem was exacerbated by the previous administrations rush just before '96. THAT WAS THE SENT MESSAGE that created this mess.
The problem is exacerbated by bipartisan malfeasance in the form of surreptitious Amnesties and failure to deport Illegals from the Interior.
Fixing it requires one of two things, documenting them, and making them LPR, or CATCHING them, Deporting them, and then Probably documenting them.
The INS is barely capable of the first. They are not Capable of the second.
Have you considered Total Asset Forfeiture?
Click here...
They Will
Deport Themsleves
To: Sabertooth
Thanks for making a hash of the opposition on this topic.
Though I'm sure they have the best of intentions, I just can't understand why amnesty boosters don't see the grave implications of what they are supporting.
62
posted on
03/19/2002 7:37:23 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: Sabertooth
2 Things. One the courts will never allow it. (ESPECIALLY WHERE YOU ARE!)
And Secondly, wrongfully or rightfully, that is far too dangerous an area to encourage the Government to tread. Look at NYC. Seizing Cars, for solicitation, or DUI....???
63
posted on
03/19/2002 7:41:20 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: all
I just want to point out yet again to dane and the other Bush-amnesty defenders that it isn't only Byrd that opposes this, so quit playing the racist card. Many, many honest GOP congressmen and the majority of Americans think Bush is out to lunch on this one.
To: Dane
And please show me any quote where Bush says, everybody come to the US. Just one
Oh, please! Have you been paying any attention at all to Bush's position on this issue? The man is VERY pro-immigration. Below are just a few quotes:
"We ought to increase legal immigration for our country's advantage. The high-tech world we are now dominating is dependent on educated folks, but we're short...of workers. It is to our nation's advantage to encourage high-powered, smart people to come into our country." (Iowa Gazette, Jan. 6, 2000)
"I intend to reform the INS to make it more welcoming to immigrants." (National Review Online, June 27, 2000 - Address to League of United Latin American Citizens)
"People [in the INS] ought to be asking 'How can I help you, what can I do to help you fill out paperwork? We ought to be saying loud and clear to people that the INS is to help families and to help people understand the maze of rules and regulations." (Washington Times, June 27, 2000 - Address to Congress of Racial Equality)
"Immigration is not a problem to be solved. It is a sign of a confident and successful nation. And people who seek to make America their home should be met in that spirit by representatives of our government. New arrivals should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment, but with openness and courtesy." (July 10, 2001 - Speech at INS Naturalization Cermony, New York City)
65
posted on
03/19/2002 7:47:20 AM PST
by
ATR
To: Dane
And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families... Baloney! Go read the bill for crying out loud!
Bushbots are just like the Clinton whores. UNBELIEVABLE!
66
posted on
03/19/2002 7:47:33 AM PST
by
RickyJ
To: PRND21
ping
To: ATR
"We ought to increase legal immigration for our country's advantage. The high-tech world we are now dominating is dependent on educated folks, but we're short...of workers. It is to our nation's advantage to encourage high-powered, smart people to come into our country." (Iowa Gazette, Jan. 6, 2000) What's wrong with that. I guess you would have said no to Carnegie, Einstein, the guy who started Intel(his name escapes me) and a whole host of other people who made America great.
Oh BTW, he is stating "legal immigration". And I thought you all were just against illegal immigration?
So I am correct when I say that you all are anti-immigrant.
68
posted on
03/19/2002 7:55:01 AM PST
by
Dane
To: Sabertooth
What amnesty?
That was Reagan.
69
posted on
03/19/2002 7:59:07 AM PST
by
PRND21
To: Sabertooth
"There are 2 million Illegals in my county."
I'm not doubting you, but I'm curious where you get a statistic like that. If you look at the official 2000 Census figures (which is supposed to include illegals as well as legals) there are only a total of 3 million foreign-born people in LA county. Are 2/3 of them illegals, or did the census miss that badly?
To: PRND21
What amnesty? That was Reagan.
You get points for begging the question with at least an accurate aside.
Reagans' was a blanket Amnesty (the last Amensty, we were promised). This isn't.
But it's an Amnesty for a targeted group of Illegals, nonetheless.
I've seen you state both by private Freepmail and in the Forum that you want Illegals deported. Has that changed?
To: ATR
ATR saying to Andy Grove(founder of Intel), whose company's microprocessors run about 80% of the computers that people on FR use to communicate.
"Sorry Andy, you are not welcome, you are a dirty immigrant."
72
posted on
03/19/2002 8:04:18 AM PST
by
Dane
To: TEXICAN II
I think I'm starting to "get it" now. Thanks for your help the other day.
73
posted on
03/19/2002 8:04:48 AM PST
by
oldvike
To: TheHeterodoxConservative
did the census miss that badly?
Yep.
Even the "official" numbers on Illegals are rising as fast as Gray Davis' budget deficit.
And consider this: Doesn't the Federal Government have a conflict of interest in being trusted to report the actual size of the Illegal population, given their complete bipartisan failure to deal with the foreign scofflaws?
To: *Immigrant_list
Check the
Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
To: Sabertooth
I'm not trying to sound argumentative, but where does your estimate come from? In other words, where's a more reliable source of information? I'm sure that people concerned about the problem have done some sort of independent analysis. Do you have any links?
To: deport
It will really be nice when we all get our papers to carry everywhere we go. And I bet I can guess exactly WHO will be complaining abut THAT!!!!
77
posted on
03/19/2002 8:15:09 AM PST
by
Howlin
To: Dane
Oh BTW, he is stating "legal immigration". And I thought you all were just against illegal immigration? So I am correct when I say that you all are anti-immigrant. These were a set of quotes to show that he is pro-immigration, generally. And at various times Bush speaks out for both high levels of legal immigration and, using codewords, legalizing illegal immigrants. He also speaks out AGAINST strengthening control of the borders.
You are not correct when you say I am anti-immigrant. I am married to an immigrant. I cannot speak for everyone on this thread, but I will suggest that most are against MASS-immigration. This encompasses a number of things: 1)historically huge numbers of legal immigrants 2)uncontrolled illegal immigration and 3)unsecured borders. These issues translate into problems such as
1) threats to national security
2) depressed wages for lower income workers
3) long-term environmental impact from future overpopulation
4) cultural and political balkanization
5) very large social welfare costs from outright welfare expenses(AFDC, food-stamps, etc.), unpaid hospital costs, public school overcrowding and the need for publicly-funded special-ed programs for immigrant children
6) Epidemiological public health concerns
All of these claims are fully documented and prove-able. It is rational and forward-looking to raise these types of concerns in public debate. It is not because we hate immigrants. Quite simply,
immigration policy is national destiny.
78
posted on
03/19/2002 8:17:08 AM PST
by
ATR
To: american spirit
HUD assistance, WIC/food stamps, free medical, etc. THIS IS CORPORATE WELFARE AND THE MAIN MAGNET DRAWING THESE PEOPLE INTO THE USA. This whole scam allows big and small businesses to EVADE their fair share of taxes and amounts to another tax on us suckers in the form of higher and higher medical premiums. Huh? What are you ranting about? Corporate welfare? Since when are corporations required to provide any of these benefits. What are you a labor agitator trying to cause trouble? Get back to Democrat boards.
79
posted on
03/19/2002 8:20:14 AM PST
by
Dave S
To: Sabertooth
What specifically does inspected by INS mean? Are you sure of that? Proof?
80
posted on
03/19/2002 8:21:50 AM PST
by
Dave S
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 481 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson