"…the mechanism is already there, the difference is that without 245(i) they would have to return home to apply, with 245(i) they don't have to."—LG
"Clearly, that's false, as is most of what you post on these threads."-Garfield
Let's start with your "amnesty", the word that you so love to throw around.245(i) is not "amnesty", it simply establishes a period of time for illegals, or people whose status is in question for reasons ranging from an INS snaffu, to their own ignorance, to step forward, voluntarily, and apply for a hearing to determine whether their status can be adjusted to "legal".
Is that false Garfield?
I didn't think so.
This section 245(i) neither guarantees that a hearing will take place, or that the outcome will be a favorable one to the applicant.
Are you saying that's not true? If you are, can you prove your claim?
"I made this rather clear-cut analogy to illustrate the foolishness of your earlier attempt to pretend an Illegal leaving the country and getting in line for a visa is the existing "mechanism" for Amnesty."
If a person who entered the country illegally, gets back across the border to Mexico (let's assume this person to be Mexican...assuming that being an illegal immigrant automatically makes you Mexican seems to be all the rage in FR these days), walks up to our consulate there, and applies for permission to migrate to the US. How would the consulate know that he'd been living in upper Tijuana (A.K.A. Los Angeles) for the past ten years?Then, he gets himself a Mexican passport, applies for a tourist visa, gets on a plane, and next thing you know, he's standing in line outside "It's a Small, Small, World" while his request is being processed by the INS.
If he had kids all those years in the US, it’s even easier than that.
Now, another reality that you ignore are the requirements that the applicant needs to meet in order to even qualify for a hearing, you never even bother posting them.
They can be found here.
You also claim that I lie when I say that upon being declined for adjustment of status, the applicant is eligible for deportation, you can read it here.
A couple more thoughts, while you are busy bashing Bush on this issue, all the while making light of his signing of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, you’ve been giving the Democrats a pass.
Telling.
So now, what have we learned, other than the fact that you must have graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Bill Clinton Institute of Spinology?
We have learned that 245(i) isn't amnesty...but rather than having everyone just take my word for it, let's quote a leading US Immigration Attorney:
"Unfortunately, section 245(i) has been the subject of many inaccurate and misleading reports. Therefore, whenever we mention this subject, we take the opportunity to explain what section 245(i) is all about.
As we explained last week (May 10, 2002) in our article President Voices Support for INA Section 245(i), 245(i) provides a procedure for individuals to be allowed to obtain permanent residence even if they had been out of status or made an improper entry to the U.S. It does not provide an amnesty or a new way to obtain permanent residence. These individuals must be eligible for permanent residence in all respects, usually based on family or employment relationships. All 245(i) does is enable a person to complete the process from within the U.S. rather than having to travel to a consulate overseas. This provision is important because certain persons who have remained in the U.S. without legal status would be subject to a 3-year or 10-year bar on returning to this country if they travel abroad. Section 245(i) also does not expedite the green card process in any way."
Mind you, this is a person whose job is to interpret the laws in a way that benefits her clientele. But why should anyone believe her, when we have you, and those cute, little jumping kitty cats.
Ay chihuahua luis! I think you hurt el gato...
245(i) is not "amnesty", it simply establishes a period of time for illegals, or people whose status is in question for reasons ranging from an INS snafu, to their own ignorance, to step forward, voluntarily, and apply for a hearing to determine whether their status can be adjusted to "legal".
You omitted "entered without inspection." Figures.
Illegals are people who have no right to be here. Most people don't want them here, but you do. But you're uncomfortable stating so openly, so you're force to prance through all of your dishonesties.
Bottom line: Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals
This section 245(i) neither guarantees that a hearing will take place, or that the outcome will be a favorable one to the applicant. Are you saying that's not true? If you are, can you prove your claim?
It's irrelevant.
When active, 245(i) guarantees that some portion of the Illegals currently trespassing in our country will be allowed to "change status."
That's sorta the point.
If a person who entered the country illegally, gets back across the border to Mexico (let's assume this person to be Mexican...assuming that being an illegal immigrant automatically makes you Mexican seems to be all the rage in FR these days), walks up to our consulate there, and applies for permission to migrate to the US. How would the consulate know that he'd been living in upper Tijuana (A.K.A. Los Angeles) for the past ten years?
They wouldn't. So your Prodigal Illegal would have to get in line and wait his turn, like every decent, honest immigrant candidate should.
Are you aware that for every Illegal Amnestied by 245(i), one decent immigrant candidate didn't get in? Amnestied Illegals count against their country's immigration quotas.
You would reward the lawless and punish the lawful. Some friend of immigrants you are.
Now, another reality that you ignore are the requirements that the applicant needs to meet in order to even qualify for a hearing, you never even bother posting them.
I didn't post them because the leverage selected Illegals use to take advantage of a 245(i) Amnesty is not relevant. What's relevant is that they are in violation of our laws, and folks like you don't want our laws enforced against them.
This is the reason you defend Section 245(I).
You also claim that I lie when I say that upon being declined for adjustment of status, the applicant is eligible for deportation, you can read it here.
No, I claimed that your attempt to spin 245(i) into some sort of deportation program earlier on this thread was laughable.
Your excerpt immediately above is a lie.
A couple more thoughts, while you are busy bashing Bush on this issue, all the while making light of his signing of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, you’ve been giving the Democrats a pass.
I made light of claims that Bush signing that Act without Amnesty was significant, not of the Act itself. Folks interested in the truth can see it here.
Giving Democrats a pass? We'll see.
So now, what have we learned, other than the fact that you must have graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Bill Clinton Institute of Spinology?
Clever. Spinology.
We have learned that 245(i) isn't amnesty...but rather than having everyone just take my word for it, let's quote a leading US Immigration Attorney:
You found an attorney who lies?
Shocking.
I don't care if you find a mathematics attorney who asserts that 2+2=5, it's still 4.
Mind you, this is a person whose job is to interpret the laws in a way that benefits her clientele.
Yeah… she'll have a bigger clientele if a 245(i) Amnesty Extension is passed. So, isn't in her self-interest to keep that unpopular Amnesty aspect of it under the radar?
You're a pretty amusing paradox, Luis. You have no fuel, you bring no heat...
But you're never out of gas.
