Some more misrepresentation of facts from you.245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status, and while it is true that while their applications are being reviewed they are not deportable, it neither guarantees a hearing, nor does it guarantee a change in status.
Hence, once the determination has been made that they do not qualify either for a hearing, or for permanent change in status, they are very, very deportable.
245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status, and while it is true that while their applications are being reviewed they are not deportable, it neither guarantees a hearing, nor does it guarantee a change in status.
Hence, once the determination has been made that they do not qualify either for a hearing, or for permanent change in status, they are very, very deportable.The misrepresentations are yours.
As it stands, Section 245(i) is sunsetted, expired, defunct, dead, inoperable, no more, kaput, taking a dirt nap, a regulatory null set... no new Illegals currently are eligible for "change of status" under 245(i) because it is no longer the the law of the land.
Reactivating 245(i) would provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exists.
So, you're suggesting that extending 245(i) is a part of a clever bait and switch operation to look like Amnesty but actually set the stage for deportations?
Please, go on... show me how many Illegals changed status under Clinton's first round of 245(i) Amnesties and how many were deported in the resultant dragnet.
BTW, you're aware that INS Director James Ziglar has said that there will be no mass deportations of Illegals, are you not? Is that all part of the Section 245(i) subterfuge to lull ineligible Illegals into telling us where to find them?
Laughable.
Our test subject is an Egyptian citizen born in 1968. He comes to the United States and overstays his visa, while here he finds work and a nice US citizen female to marry him.
At the end of Clintons presidency, he passes the Life Act and extended 245(I). Our subject applies. Since the INS can't do a Country background check and does not have information from the FBI, CIA or State Department, our subject is granted an adjustment of status, because the ins does not find any criminal history in the US. No on knows what he has done in Egypt or anywhere else.
Can you guess this guys name?
Mohammed Atta
While this is not really what happened, it very possible could happen and we do not know how many more Mohammed Atta's are in the US.
As 245(i) is written write now, there are several possible terrorist in custody that could apply and be granted there adjustment, if we can't find enough evidence against them. And just because we can not find the evidence, does not mean it is not there.
This is not counting the terrorist we don’t know we are here and are very adept at exploiting our weak immigration laws. This is an invitation for disaster.
If Congress would modify the law, to include a broader more thorough background investigation, remove the labor certificate portion of the law, and restrict it to illegal aliens that were married during the original period, as apposed to letting the get married just to apply, then I would not have that much of a problem with it.
But no matter what they do, 245(I) promotes illegal immigration. This is not the first time we have don this and the illegal aliens know we are stupid enough to do it again, so they will just come and wait.