AMNESTY by BUSH - The Truth about Section 245(i)

March 19th, 2002 | Compiled by Sabertooth

[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) filings

Section 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.

[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."

You sound like a liberal race-baiter. You're trying to shut down rational debate by making ugly accusations about people's motives.

There are a number of points at which to refute your analogy, anyway. Andy Grove came here at a time of very low immigration. This debate is about the very high level of immigration we have today. Andy Grove did not come here on as a skilled, high-tech worker on an H1-B visa, doing high skilled work for lower wages than equivalent American workers. He came here as a young man, was educated here, and built a business here. How well do you know Andy Grove's story? Inform yourself: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/bios/grove/bio2.htm

[Tauzero]

"'But it's not a BLANKET AMNESTY...'

And it's not, it was directed at about 200,000 people to reunite families"

Ah, well, the intents or directions of laws are frequently quite different from their actual effects.

[EBUCK]

If we can just give 5 billion away in foriegn welfare each year we could certainly afford to build a fence. I just built a chain link fence for 11 clams a foot (with labor). It's only 6 feet high but I'll call it 11 bucks for an 8 footer too. So 6 bucks times 5280 feet times 2200 miles = 127,776,000. Compare that to the burden we all carry that is anywhere from 1-25 billion to support illegals on all forms of assistance and you have a bargain on your hands.

EBUCK

[Dane]

It is rational and forward-looking to raise these types of concerns in public debate

Would you have said no to Andy Grove(founder of Intel) when he was escaping Communist Hungary.

He was penniless, uneducated, and nearly deaf. He fits your description of an "undersirable" that you list in reply #78.

[Tauzero]

"We'll build some fences, station a few more troops along the 1,933 miles of Mexican-US border and issue papers to all citizens so that they can prove they are here legally. Then we'll set up check points within each state and along each state's border crossings and have everyone show their papers as the pass through the check points."

The effects of failing to control the border will serve as the excuses given for issuing national ID. 9/11 in part was a failure to control the border -- and now we have the Orwellian "Patriot" act.

You can either have a secure border or you can have a police state. Pick one.

[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?

You know, on review I'm going to amend my statement at #52 somewhat...

There are two million Illegals in the greater L.A. Area (which would also include Orange County and a few others), not in L.A. County alone.

I don't have the specific links handy, the figures are off the top of my head from things I've read that I found persuasive. But I'll try and find them for you.

In any case, the math is pretty straightforward... California has about 35 million people, and 4 million Illegals. That's about 11%. Most of the Illeglas are in SoCal, and the Greater Los Angeles Area has nearly 20 million people. 11% (a low figure for our area, but the State average) of 20 million is going to give you a figure of about 2 million Illegals.

The number for my county would be closer to a million, using those figures.

Nevertheless, I did misspeak, and I appreciate your calling that error to my attention. My apologies.

[ATR]

You can either have a secure border or you can have a police state. Pick one.

Right on target!

[Sabertooth]

What specifically does inspected by INS mean? Are you sure of that? Proof?

It's a euphemism for "entered legally."

Proof? Read the legislation and the pertinent INS definitions of those who fall under Section 245(i). They're Illegals.

Legal foreign nationals fall under Section 245.

[Travis McGee]

The American Southwest is going to be "Big Kosovo" in a generation, with millions of unassimilated non English speaking Mexicans playing the role of the Albanians.

The Kosovo Serbs also used to enjoy the cheap Albanian labor and went for "open borders".

Look where that got them.

[Miss Marple]

Who is going to patrol 1933 miles? Who will repair it? What about tunnels?

AND, what are you going to do about the Canadian border, which is 3 times the length and covers vast stretches of wilderness? What about the coastlines?

[Sabertooth]

Apologies for the busted links to the HR 1885 legislation. Apparently the links provided by a search on that Federal Gov site go stale after a while, but you can find the links I was trying to make by doing the following...

First, click HERE.

Enter HR 1885 in the bill number search field, and click search. Then click on option #1. On the next page you'll see an outline for the entire 1885 legislation. For the 245(i) mods, scroll down to Sec. 607 at the bottom, and click.

Hope that helps.

[KirkandBurke]

Democrats and Rebuplicans Square Off
Amalgamated Press|3/19/02|Bob Cratchit

(Washington, D.C.) In a bold move, following a stirring floor speech by Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV), Democrats have declared that ice is freezing cold. In response, congressional Republicans, led by Dick Armey (R-TX), held a press conference voicing their opposition. Armey is quoted as saying, "If the Democrats say ice is cold, you know it's got to be hot and that's where I'll make my stand. We're not gonna let'em get away with this." Senate Minority Leader, Trent Lott, was less strident in his position. He said that ice was not nearly as cold as Byrd claims, but he'd be willing to work on a compromise measure with fellow senators.

Sometimes, the D vs. R stuff is just too funny.

[Dane]

You sound like a liberal race-baiter. You're trying to shut down rational debate by making ugly accusations about people's motives.

Huh I am not the one who is praising grand wizard pork barrel non-impeacher Senator Byrd(Democrat), who is holding up needed reform in the INS and other border security issues.

[DJ88]

I am begging to get an answer to this question: if these people are illegal, than how would they possibly be able to get Social Security, Welfare, etc. if they are not legal aliens of the US? And if they are, then someone is paying them to get illegal documentation, and I want to know who that is. Those are the people we should be looking for, aren't they?

[Howlin]

Absolutely. And I couldn't agree more.

[grania]

You beleive the hyperbole and fear mongering and it is more than unacceptable it is sad.

My concern is the "slippery slope" thing; any opening in the immigration laws and it just gets worse. The country has enough people; what has to happen now is that those who are already citizens have to learn the language and become part of communities with interests beyond their own ethnic group.

The problem is that there are some issues on which the two main elements of the Repbulican party do not agree, and this is one of them. Pro-business conservatives want the cheap labor and consumer consumption immigrants provide. Social conservatives want to preserve the language, culture, and values of the US, and not have the foreign competition for jobs. It's not about fear-mongering; it's about values.

[DJ88]

Bingo. Who is going to pay for all that, when we are looking at MAYBE 200,000 people staying here because of "snafus". I have no problem deporting people because they have come here illegally, but if they were in the middle of getting their paperwork completed, and it got screwed up by the INS (see MOHAMMED ATTA) then we should ship them back WITH their families? I want to know who is going to PAY FOR ALL OF THIS...it's not going to be FREE.

There are valid points to both sides of the arguments here, but it is not a black/white matter. There are gray areas we must also cover.

If these people have not committed a crime, are working and only trying to make a better life for their families, what's the problem? On the other hand, if they are out there collecting money for not doing anything, or if they are terrorists, then I can see the point.

I think we all need to remember that we got here on a boat, train or other means of transportation also.

[ATR]

Huh I am not the one who is praising grand wizard pork barrel non-impeacher Senator Byrd(Democrat), who is holding up needed reform in the INS and other border security issues.

Again, you're changing your tune with each post, each time throwing out an inflammatory attack or inaccurate analogy. Byrd has little to with this, and his name was only brought up by quimby(post #4) in the absence of anything better to say, apparently. Sure, Byrd gave a speech yesterday saying he was against 245(i) at this time. Sure, Byrd is a porkmaster and was already holding up the (good) border security bill before this 245(i) fiasco appeared. Are we all automatically wrong now?

Do you have any reasoned statement to make in favor of 245(i), or unsecured borders, or mass immigration, or having more than 10 million unauthorized foreign nationals in the US, or the other factual issues raised in this thread?

[DJ88]

Here's another part of the bill that people kinda glance over:

"Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States."

Do you see anywhere in there where it says YOU WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED A GREEN CARD????? I DON'T.

[deport]

And I bet I can guess exactly WHO will be complaining abut THAT!!!!

Heck the secure feeling of having both a fenced border and a police state examining all peoples papers can only assure everyone that only legal people are here. You never know who that person next you maybe... legal or illegal. Who knows how quickly the chip implants will be available now. Here, let me scan your arm to see if you are in our data base.... Yep I feel so much more secure now. Maybe Byrd will sign on.