Dunno. I just went with the most low-ball estimate, and it seemed to be one that Bush and Amnesty apologists were most comfortable with.
Posted on 03/19/2002 1:49:07 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
The Truth about Section 245(i) |
|||||
|
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 Last week's 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals. |
|||||
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.
|
|||||
Dunno. I just went with the most low-ball estimate, and it seemed to be one that Bush and Amnesty apologists were most comfortable with.
That's what I've been trying to figure out. The bill says nothing about the number of illegal aliens that could take advantage of 245i. Seems to me Bush and company picked this number out of thin air.
I have lost all respect for Bush. He should resign.
No, it doesn't. The bill calls for a sponsor. A family member (spouse, parent, child) or an employer.
The language is very specific on that.
What special provileges? Any alien currently in this country on a visa (worker, tourist, education, etc) can apply for a change in status to permanent resident. That is law now. These people that you are calling illegals, came in on a visa, made their application for change in status like they are allowed by law and the government bureaucrats at the INS screwed up like they did in finally issuing Atta's student visa last week a year late and six months after his death. These are not special privileges. Got it? In fact 245(i) was existing law until April 30 when it expired. This thing you are calling amnesty has existed in law for years. Fact that you call it an amnesty doesnt make it so.
An analogy might be as follows. You depoit funds in your checking account and write checks. Your bank (INS) screws up and credits the deposit to someone else's account. Meanwhile all your checks bounce. Even though your bank admits it deposited the money to the wrong account and its the banks fault, they take several months to rectify the situation. Your solution to this problem following how you are treating the INS situation would be to charge $20 a check for each check bounced and report your check kiting to the cops and want you arrested. All this even though you are innocent.
I see you also don't care about the sovereignty of this great country.
What? What does this law have todo with sovereignty? Do you know who passes the laws, do you know who enforces the laws? How can this harm our sovereighty. Sinec you cant argue the facts, it seems you are going to argue the "red, white, and blue."
What is it?
Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) when they first 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, or if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, 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.
If I entered without permission or I did not stay in lawful status, how can I adjust my immigration status without leaving the U.S.?
- INS Form I-130 must be submitted by a close relative who agrees to sponsor you. Your relative must be a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. If the filing date of the I-130 is after January 14, 1998, then you will need to show that you were in the United States on December 21, 2000, when you file later for adjustment of status.
- United States citizens may sponsor their parents, spouse, children (regardless of age or marital status), and siblings
- Lawful permanent residents may only sponsor their spouses and their unmarried children.
- No one can sponsor uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews, brothers- and sisters-in-law, or grandparents.
OR
- Department of Labor Form ETA-750 and/or INS Form I-140 should be filed if your employer agrees to sponsor you. Your employer should check with the local Employment Services Office to see which form(s) are required. In some cases, you may be able to file the forms yourself. If the filing date of the form(s) is after January 14, 1998, then you will need to show that you were in the United States on December 21, 2000.
OR
- INS Form I-360 may be filed, if you are a member of a special group such as an Amerasian, the widow(er) of a United States citizen, a battered spouse, or you may file a Form I-526 if you are an alien investor.
This information about adjustment of status is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act, as changed by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act (LIFE) and LIFE Act Amendments. Detailed information on Section 245(i) will be included in the regulations to be published.
You might be eligible to adjust your status under a different part of Section 245, without paying the penalty and without regard to the filing deadlines, if you are someone who entered with permission but who has been out of status for 180 days or less, or if your sponsor is your spouse, parent, or child and a United States citizen. More information on application filing procedures and updates on LIFE and other immigration benefits can be found on the INS website, www.ins.usdoj.gov, or on the INS Help Line at 1-800-375-5283, as it becomes available.
Link.That's what I've been trying to figure out. The bill says nothing about the number of illegal aliens that could take advantage of 245i. Seems to me Bush and company picked this number out of thin air.
If you read the language in the proposed law and understood it rather than promulgating all this propaganda, you would know that everyone who qualifies for 245(i) had to have made application for change in status prior to August 15, 2001. Since these applications are already in the INS computer, I think even they ought to be able to make an estimate of the maximum number of people that would be covered by this return to the old law that existed prior to April 30.
Keeping in mind that the people discussing this issue in DC, who are also the people that will pass this extension, are duly elected to their posts under the laws of the United States, and that they are acting under the strict guidelines set forth by our constitution, how could you possibly argue loss of "sovereignty"?
We are going to lose our sovereignty by creating more citizens?
Ludicrous.
Show me one single post where I have defended illegal aliens.
In your ardor for GWB rather than the nation, you assert that the INS patchwork of self-asserted "improvements" represent a substantive change. They do not.
The INS is broken beyond repair, and these inconsequential tweaks do not fix the core problems at the agency (which for the most part are the fault of Congress, and not the people working at INS).
Further, I don't typically write my Congressman or Senators about INS issues. I talk to them, or to their aides. I can assure you that you are the odd man out on this topic.
Simple. It is pure and unadulterated propaganda drawn from thin air, as is the assertion that 245(i) "only applies to those who have been caught in a bureaucratic SNAFU."
Under 245(i), anyone who can "prove" a family or employment relationship prior to August 2001 - and can get a sponsor to back it - is eligible for the non-amnesty amnesty. If you had a civil marriage with Bonita on July 15, 2001, you're in. If Joe's Landscaping employed you (illegally) from January 2000 to July 2001, you're home free.
You don't have to have done anything prior to August 2001 other than to (a) have worked illegally or (b) have married a citizen or permanent resident. And having done that (all of which is illegal under the United States Code Section 1245), you are now eligible for 245(i).
There's a lot of propaganda being tossed about, even by seriously misinformed conservatives.
US Code makes it illegal for a foreign national to marry a US citizen?
Bush lies about this bill and gets a pass from the liberal media because they know who these illegal immigrants will vote for once they become citizens of both the USA and Mexico.
Fox is holding the 2004 election over Bush's head. 2000 was a dead heat, and Bush is looking for a decisive advantage next time. Together Bush and Fox can create millions of fresh Hispanic voters, and them Fox will endorse Bush like crazy, influencig what will be THE deciding bloc in the 2004 election.
It a pure political sellout of American sovereignty - and I might add, of the value and meaning of YOUR citizenship.
It a pure political sellout of American sovereignty - and I might add, of the value and meaning of YOUR citizenship.
Sadly you are 100% correct. That is bottom line.
I have already written Bush and told him that if he places the interest of Mexico and the Mexican people above me and my family, he will not get my vote in 2004. End of story!!
Article I, section 8.
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.