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.

[jwalsh07]

Option 4. Beam us back to 1973 and repeal Roe v Wade.

[jwalsh07]

Don't keep dinner waiting on it.

[sarasmom]

WOW.You have a degree of patience I wont even waste my time aspiring too. Thanks for the ping.

[Arleigh]

Sorry, enough of all that. Go read the legislation.

Good job posting the facts! Kudos!

[ATR]

I understand your point of view, but shooting this down will round up those illegals exactly how?

This issue - 245i - is one little piece of the puzzle. No one has said it is the be all and the end all.

[Arleigh]

We don't need another bill passed to tighten border security. WE MERELY HAVE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! I'm still waiting, over 20 years, for all employers that hire illegal aliens to be fined and jailed.

Yes, this is the key point. If employers paid a price for breaking our laws, then the jobs for illegals would go away and so would the illegals. It's really that simple! No jobs, no food stamps, no welfare, no public school education = no incentive for breaking into our country and robbing us.

[WRhine]

I have a question for you. The children of this subset of illegals that have been here since the early 90's are US citizens. If you send their fathers back to Mexico to wait there for their papers to be processed and the kids stay here, who supports them?

Illegal Aliens who have children that are born in America rarely, if ever, get deported--though to my knowledge they "technically" can be deported under the law. Could this be why they call them Anchor Babies? The thrust of 245I does not focus on this as much as the cases where Illegal Aliens leave their families in Mexico (or wherever) to come to America, often illegally.

Bottom line: I am against any legislation that rewards illegal aliens for breaking our laws and encourages millions more to do likewise. I don't want to see America turn into a Banana Republic because our government doesn't have the courage to protect its sovereignty or borders.

Another question. Are you prepared to have the federal government do house by house searches in every town in this nation looking for illegals and loading them on trains?

Oh another Straw Man argument. How unusual. Do you honestly believe there is only ONE solution to combating illegal immigration? To answer your LOADED question--“No” and the vast majority of people that want to see illegal immigration curbed in this country don’t advocate this approach either. Like MOST problems in life there are a myriad of ways to solve the crisis of illegal immigration and the reality is that it will take years to accomplish.

What are my ideas on rolling back illegal immigration?

1) The first order of business is to seal the borders with the help of the military. What’s the military for if not to protect our country from foreign invasion?

2) Instruct law enforcement departments throughout the country that they are to detain and hand over to the INS all aliens here illegally as they find them in the course of their work. If the INS doesn’t have the current manpower for this, then increase their budget until they do.

3) Fire Ziglar and replace him with an effective manager who does not have any open conflicts about executing the duties of the job.

4) Perhaps the most effective remedy is to actually enforce the unenforced laws on illegal immigration and levy stiff fines on businesses that hire illegal aliens to the fullest extent of the law. If the current law is not enough of a deterrent then change the law to make it uneconomical for businesses to hire illegals.

5) Fix the 14th amendment loophole so that there is NO incentive for border hopping Hispanics to run to the nearest American hospital to deliver their anchor baby and get on America’s gravy train of welfare.

And if they decide after having lived and worked here for the past 6 or 8 years that they won't go peacefully, how far are you prepared to go to get your point across?

No doubt there will always be those who refuse to recognize the authority of our laws and that’s what we have the INS for. If an alien refuses to leave peacefully when ordered then the only other alternative is force. Just like if I lived in France for 8 years illegally and one day their immigration authorities finally catch up with me and tell me to leave and I turn around and tell them I am going to stay regardless of their laws. Well, what would a reasonable person expect their government to do? And if the law isn’t applied uniformly and all it takes is a little stubbornness to suppress the law may I ask “What Good Is The Law?

If you want to accomplish something, then change the law bestowing citizenship on the progeny of illegals born here.

As previously indicated, I think closing the loophole in Amendment 14 is critical to controlling illegal immigration.

Until you do that, your whistling in the wind.

I agree.

[WRhine]

Yes, if you look on the INS website they list something like four different areas in which non-citizens are questioned when they interview the country. One is a medical history,one has to do with reason for being in the country, another I think has to do with terrorism, etc. I dont recall exactly what they are and I have already wasted too much time here given that your mind is made up.

You seem quite fuzzy on what the INS regulations mean. I'm quite sure that the INS doesn't know what it means either. LOL.

[jwalsh07]

The thrust of 245I does not focus on this as much as the cases where Illegal Aliens leave their families in Mexico (or wherever) to come to America, often illegally.

I've read 245(i) and the underlying law and I would simply disagree with you. The extension to 245(i) is targeted at the group I mentioned. Since that is the issue, what becomes of the children of the illegals while they go back home and get in line? Thats the crux of the matter and you didn't address it.

I'm told there are 10 million illegals in the US. How many INS agents and court employees would it take to find, incarcerate, have a hearing and deport them all? And what do we do with all those kids that were born in America?

These are things that have to be addressed if we are going to take a hard line on illegals.

[Texasforever]

Unlike Texas, the people of California had enough guts to do something about this invasion.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

[Miss Marple]

Well, you certainly made yourself plain. I see that you think Bush is a quisling, that FDR was better at protecting national sovereignty, that MOST people who were born in Mexicio are illegal, and that we should divert the military to guarding the nearly 2000 miles of Mexican border and the 3000 miles of Canadian border.

I have provided the address of the INS web site, but you refuse to believe that this has any information. You accuse the INS supervisor of being incompetent, and just want to rant about how Bush isn't being tough enough on illegal aliens.

Fair enough. I don't agree with your view of this, I detest your use of hyperbole, and we will leave it at that.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Several years ago, the people of the great state of California held a FREE election and voted 3 to 1 in favor of proposition 187 which would have put a stop to much of the tax paid support of illegal aliens and the federal government stepped in and burned our ballots and declared our election unconstitutional.

We are sick and tired of politicians that do nothing about this massive threat to our nation. And that includes President Bush.

Unlike Texas, the people of California had enough guts to do something about this invasion. We had enough guts to hold an election and win it, while being called racist, bigots, and the other usual names. We won. But our government turned around and kicked us in the teeth and declared our election unconstitutional and void. Millions of us wont ever forget this.

You can sit there in Texas and tell us all about this amnesty and how it isn't really amnesty, but something else. You keep showing up on these immigration threads and attempt to minimize this titanic invasion of millions, and tell us how we are all just misinterpreting President Bush etc.

This invasion is totally defenseless. But you go ahead now, and continue to defend it and debate it.

IROTFLMAO!!!!!!

A big Texan belly laugh huh? I am not surprised that someone from your state would find this funny. Our government wipes out our entire election, that we worked for two years on, and your rolling in the Texas dirt laughing.

Let me give you a quote from one of your neighbors.

>Why no! Nothing like that could happen to the great "Republic of Texas". We've got the Alamo. Why, our motto is "Don't Mess With Texas". We print it on T-shirts and refridgerator magnets and everything. We are the biggest braggarts and chest beaters in the nation. You don't know what you are talking about. Illegal Mexicans aren't taken over Texas. Texas is conquering Mexico. yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. we will just keep telling ourselves that. That way we won't have our overblown pride hurt. Yeah! Thats it.

570 posted on 3/13/02 9:38 PM Pacific by southern rock [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

HE HAW, HE HAW!

I couldn't resist!

[Nea Wood]

I have a question for you. The children of this subset of illegals that have been here since the early 90's are US citizens. If you send their fathers back to Mexico to wait there for their papers to be processed and the kids stay here, who supports them?

Many robbers, rapists, murderers, and drug dealers also happen to be parents. We don't let them out of jail just because there's nobody to support their kids. If someone breaks the law, they have to pay the penalty. Otherwise, illegals are holding us for ransom, saying, "You HAVE to let us stay here now because of our kids." Yes, it sounds cruel, but if we get tough, we remove the magnet that draws illegals here. Then, there will be fewer illegals coming here and having those anchor babies in the first place.

Another question. Are you prepared to have the federal government do house by house searches in every town in this nation looking for illegals and loading them on trains?

We won't have to. Remove the magnets and the benefits, properly punish the employers who are illegally hiring them, and many will deport themselves. The others we deport as we uncover them.

And if they decide after having lived and worked here for the past 6 or 8 years that they won't go peacefully, how far are you prepared to go to get your point across?

What if a rapist, murderer, bank robber, or drug dealer decides he "won't go peacefully"? Lawbreakers are lawbreakers. You pursue them, arrest them, whatever you have to do!

If you want to accomplish something, then change the law bestowing citizenship on the progeny of illegals born here. Until you do that, your whistling in the wind.

EXCELLENT idea. I only wish that would happen.

[Sabertooth]

Sabertooth:"You know I've never said it's a blanket amnesty, all of your straw man arguments nothwithstanding.

Texasforever: That statement is a little hard to reconcile with this statement:

Sabertooth: President Bush's "No Blanket Amnesty" is a Clintonian promise in spirit, because it's an attempt to conceal his true goal, which is an Amnesty by another name (even more dishonesty) for millions of illegal aliens.

Texasforever: Now maybe you will stop the straw man debating techniques.

Let's start with the last first.

A straw man argument is one in which one person argues against a point the other didn't make. Whatever your beef with me, it's not clear where you imagine you've identified a straw man on my part.

As to the compatibility of my statements, let's see if we have the same definition of "blanket amnesty."

I posted this at #43, so maybe you missed it.

There you go with the "blanket amnesty" straw man again.

Funny how the meaning of that phrase shifts so quickly for those of you who obsess over it.

When a mini-amnesty is pointed out, you run around saying, "it's not a BLANKET Amnesty!" As though that was the point. Yet when you do, you are at least making the correct distinction between a partial and a full ("blanket") amnesty.

However, when President Bush makes a promise against "blanket amnesty," and it's pointed out that this is not a promise against any or every partial Amnesty (which is consistent with the definition you were originally using in your straw man attempt), you feel its out of bounds.

I take President Bush at his word when he says he doesn't favor "blanket amnesty." I also believe that he's looking for any means possible, by any name possible, to grant Amnesty ("normalize," "regularize," etc.) to millions of Illegals.

Just not all of them. Hence: "no blanket amnesty."

Now, you may disagree that "blanket amnesty" means a full amnesty for all Illegals, but that's the understanding I have of the word, and with which I made my statement. It appears consistent with usage generally seen from posters on either side of this issue.

I believe that deals with your claim above, "That statement is a little hard to reconcile with this statement:"

My statements are perfectly consistent.

[Texasforever]

I couldn't resist!

Ant state that can't hold on to their guns should not be talking "guts" with Texas.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The result is that the legislation last week was a Bush Amnesty built on a Clinton Amnesty. Some several hundred thousand Illegals will get to remain in the US if the Senate passes the bill as is, and Bush signs it.

You take one small section of a comprehensive law dealing with the security of our borders and characterize it as amnesty. Debating whether 245(i) is an amnesty or an extension is like trying to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Originally you said it was amnesty for millions, now it's a mini-amnesty.

Subsection 245(i) was part of the immigration LAW, but the provision expired. This bill reinstates the same subsection. BTW I said this the other day and you said I got that wrong. How could I be wrong on this point when all the language of the bill does is change dates in a few places. If the extension didn't exist in previous law, the section you quoted would have to spell out the entire process. You talk about a Bush Amnesty on top of a Clinton Amnesty as if there was moral equivalence between the two administrations on this topic.

Among other things, Clinton and Gore for political reasons directed their political cronies in the INS to IGNORE INS regulations re: FBI background checks which are intended to ensure that convicted felons didn't get green cards or citizenship papers. The Clinton-Gore INS bypassed the rules, letting an estimated 200,000 convicted felons become US CITIZENS in flagrant violation of INS regulations. Strike that, there is no moral equivalence, I was being too generous. The truth is, Clinton has gotten a free pass on these threads, except for a few obligatory "of course the democrats share some of the blame" type remarks when I specifically brought up Clinton's treason. Otherwise, there is nothing but venom and hatred on these threads which is directed not at the traitor who caused the problem, but for the decent guy who's saddled with it and is trying to fix it at the same time our nation is under attack!

As others have explained, without 245(i) an alien could still apply for lawful resident status only he would have to return to his country to apply from there. Section 245(i) lets them apply from here provided they have a qualifying relative or employee sponsor. Sponsorship means someone who is already here legally is vouching for the person. It cannot be someone who is here illegally, as some have erroneously claimed on the thread. It seems to me that a full-blown amnesty would automatically grant lawful permanent residence or citizenship status to someone who didn't meet the requirements. In other words, something similar to what Clinton did. What this section 245(i) does is save the alien the trouble of having to go back home to apply from there, which he could have done with no 245(i)

Under 245(i), they still have to qualify for lawful resident status like everyone else. I understand that without 245(i), an alien who is sent back would not be allowed to apply for 10 years, whereas under 245(i), they simply pay a $1,000 fine for being here unlawfully. The point is the people paying the fine are turning themselves in whereas the other group was caught here illegally. There's no incentive for illegals to become legal if the INS is going to punish them after they turn themselves in. If they went back home, they could apply from back home and no one would be the wiser. Had you called this a reinstatement of an existing process to extend the time for qualifying for immigrant status, which is accurate, everyone would yawn.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Guns? Changing the subject are we? Thats pretty predictable coming from you.

[Texasforever]

My statements are perfectly consistent.

No just self serving. But hell you have shown your lack of intellectual honesty for going on two weeks now.

[Sabertooth]

Look at his title for this very thread.

Actually, this very thread and that title were written with you in mind.

You've been after me for a few days, with statements like "Do you even know what's in the legislation? Have you read it?

Yes, and yes.

But I held off on answering, because I wanted to put this all together for you. This seemed the be the territory on which you wanted to debate, and I wanted to accomodate you.

I've made the case, and a few who were on your side have agreed, that this 245(i) extension applies specifically to certain Illegals, and for $1,000 and some paperwork, they can "change status." That means go from Illegal to Legal.

That means an Amnesty for those Illegals.

I've watched your posts here, and have noticed that you haven't yet taken a stab at refuting my thesis.

You can start anytime.