They can be related to a US citizen (parent/child/spouse), have received a job offer in some skilled fields but be currently out of work or underemployed, be a refugee, etc.
spot on. I work on a database tracking the help given by the State to maaaany refugees, poors, whatever you call them, etc. The situations in which those people are very often extremely complex, confusing, etc. If one focus on money only, or self-determination, then you end up with a very tough, unfriendly, non human system...
> The situations in which those people are very often extremely complex, confusing, etc. If one focus on money only, or self-determination, then you end up with a very tough, unfriendly, non human system...
Could you share some examples. It would be valuable to learn about the reality of these issues on a personal level, rather than statistics.
> refugees, poors, whatever you call them
Let's call them people: People who are refugees, people who are poor, etc.
(It's a general point and not a criticism of the parent, which like any comment I don't think should be taken literally and dissected.)
Reminds me of the Onion report on the study that found "human babies, long thought by psychologists to be highly inquisitive and adaptable, are actually extraordinarily stupid." [0]. My parents were Vietnam War refugees. They had the legal clearance, and I believe eventually proved themselves to be hard-working and contributors to society, but they probably would have floundered if not for the initial cushion of government assistance (food stamps, welfare, etc) and the generosity of American host families.
Immigrant I comes in my country. He's intercepted by the police, I is sick, so the police send him to hospital. As the guy as no social security number, the hospital gives him a temporary one. The hospital pays the bill (yes, my country is socially very advanced). Then guy is better but, because the hospital paid the bill, he now has a special "register number" (more or less a social security number). The guy now reaches a "social help center". They find him a place to sleep. At the same time the guy request a request for asylum. For that he needs a lawyer because, well, he doesn't speak our language and our administration is sometimes complex. Now the guy is interviewed, because the state wants to make sure he is in the condition for asylum. Problem, he'll have to wait 6 months before the first real interview. So the guy starts to run out of money (eating, paying lawyer,...) so he seeks friends. Ah, those friends are somewhere else in my country. So he moves. Ah, friends are in deep shit for some reason, so he moves again. Now he has to be tied to another center for social help, more papers, more complex administration. He now has his first interview. Not a good one, the guy didn't manage to offer all the proofs. So the lawyer will help him to gather some more proofs. Second interview, better this time, he's on track to be recognized as a political refugee; but that'll take a year or two. More lawyers, more money, more small job, more moves from place to place. And all of this is OK if the guy keeps sane (yes, they are people who try to abuse the weaks).
If this sound like a pile of facts, it is. But all those facts are gathered, analyzed, to determine what kind of help the person can receive from the state. And that makes my little database and rule model extremely complicated (or sophisticated, depending on your point of view).
Is there a rule saying they can't? I hope they can; my attitude toward immigration is that those are the people that need help and will benefit the most. From a statue in NY harbor:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
Did you know that awful poetry tacked onto unrelated statuary does not dictate public policy? The entire media doesn't know this, so it's no shame if you don't either.
Bringing people to a foreign land does not really help them that much. It is a much better form of help if you were to help them fix their own countries.
Having to adjust to a new culture is not really fun (unless you had an interest in that culture for some reason; but this did not apply to "poor"immigrants).
> It is a much better form of help if you were to help them fix their own countries.
As an immigrant, let me tell you that immigration had a huge positive impact my family's lives. Of course fixing my country would be great... if it were even remotely possible.
As an immigrant, I've seen many immigrants who have absolutely no interest in the culture or society of the country they immigrated to. Most people just want to get a citizenship because their own country's passport sucks and their country's economy and education and health care sucks.
There isn't one monolithic "American culture". For example just because I'm part of the hacker culture doesn't mean I have to sip IPAs. There can and will be cherry picking of aspects they like, what matters is how their outlook changes and the love for this land. They might appear to be outwardly disinterested, but many sort of enjoy the culture in their own ways. Giving up on their citizenship and applying for a new one is no easy decision.
> As an immigrant, I've seen many immigrants who have absolutely no interest in the culture or society of the country they immigrated to.
Okay, if you say so, but that's not what I was disputing.
> Most people just want to get a citizenship because their own country's passport sucks and their country's economy and education and health care sucks.
IMO, the economy, the education system, and the health care system are fundamental to society, and if these suck, then moving out and immigrating into a better country sounds like a perfectly reasonable choice to me. Immigrants are trying to secure the best futures for their families.
> I've seen many immigrants who have absolutely no interest in the culture or society of the country they immigrated to
The U.S. culture is whatever the people make it. Italian immigrants brought Italalian food; Mexican immigrants brought Mexican food.
Regardless, the parent claim is made for all first generation immigrants, historically; you can read it over and over in history books: They keep to themselves, speak their own language, etc. The research I saw (long ago) said the second generation are part of the 'American' culture; the third generation intermarries at a rate of about 80% (based on vague recollection, but the number was of that order).
EDIT: It makes sense: I would say almost anyone in their 30s or older or even in their 20s, if they moved to a country with a different culture and language (e.g., U.S. to Russia or Japan), would continue to speak English at home, eat American food, read English books and watch English movies, and hang around other immigrants. Their kids would be Russian/Japanese, however.
It's easier to move to a country who's ideals you identify with than to fix an entire country. Also American culture isn't exactly limited to the American mainland. It's been exported over media, one of the major reasons people immigrate.
> Bringing people to a foreign land does not really help them that much
What is this claim based on? It's very hard to believe that Somalis or Syrians, for example, or any of the hungry, tired and poor who emigrate to the U.S. aren't far better off.
It helped my ancestors immensely; our family is immeasurably better off than those left behind, who probably are wiped out and almost certainly not up to our standard of living.
> When he married an American woman and could then apply for a green card, he figured with his legal background he’d have no trouble filling out the paperwork himself. But the forms were so overly complicated and frustratingly counterintuitive that he gave up and hired an immigration attorney.
When I applied for my green card I thought the whole process was pretty simple and straightforward. I do think it might be harder for someone with more complicated circumstances, or who doesn't speak english as a first language. But I do find it surprising how hard many people with (what seem to me to be) simple cases think it is...
You may not be aware of this, but lawful permanent resident status in the US is based on a quota system by country of origin. Immigrants from Central America can experience wait times for LPR status approaching twenty years. I haven't kept a consistently non-expired drivers license or license plate tag for more than 2 years. But if you screw up any of the procedural details of an LPR application in the US --- for instance, failing to timely notify any time your residence changes for any reason --- the penalty isn't a ticket, but rather the likely forfeiture of your application.
So no, the process is not pretty simple and straightforward for a great many applicants.
As I mentioned in my original comment, I'm sure there are circumstances different from my own that are much more challenging.
I can only speak to the experience coming from the UK (and I confess to assuming that the experience from Canada is comparable), and that's where I find surprise: people from the UK who presumably went through the same experience as me often claim that it's impossible to navigate without a lawyer. That's just not true.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of resident aliens in this country seeking lawful permanent status face far more difficult challenges than you did. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just reporting a fact.
> So no, the process is not pretty simple and straightforward for a great many applicants.
That read as a snarky criticism of a claim I never made.
The fact that you're supplying isn't really a contradiction of or great addition to anything I said in my narrow comment: I explicitly acknowledged it myself. I wouldn't mind that, but it isn't very nice to accompany it with snark and misrepresentation.
Most people in general just don't have a mind for the law. The people hanging out on this board probably are smart enough to figure it out, given sufficient time and googling.
> You may not be aware of this, but lawful permanent resident status in the US is based on a quota system by country of origin.
To expand on this, immigrant visas in most (but not all) categories are actually what is limited; for people that don't get in on a dual intent visa like the H-1B first (i.e., the vast majority of prospective legal immigrants), that means entry is limited on that basis, not the status transition to an LPR from some other legally-present status.
Maybe. US immigration law and the implementing regulation is complex and there's some confusing grey areas. This source seems to indicate that O-1 is (or was as of 2011) treated as dual intent in that you can apply for permanent residency while on it, but also seems to indicate that you still need to return to your country of origin rather than transition in place. [0]
> Also is there a rough estimate of how long wait times are for different countries of Origin?
This might help, though it's technically how long people now being admitted in each category/country have waited from establishing eligibility rather than how long people entering the queue now with wait. [1]
In all seriousness, with the way certain cities, states, and a political party so ardently defend illegal immigrants, why is anyone bothering come here legally? If you live in SF, no one's gonna deport you. If you have a kid while in the country, they become a citizen. They'll get to use our public schools. When they get older they'll get in-state tuition for college. When you get sick you can feel free to go to any hospital you'd like, free of charge. And if you wait long enough, you'll probably be the beneficiary of a blanket amnesty act.
Doing it legally is for suckers. There, I saved anyone looking to come to the US a lot of trouble.
I'm not sure your stance, but that's kind of the argument for beginning to enforce the law again. Our loose enforcement of immigration laws is a bit of a slap in the face to those of us who bothered to come here legally.
Maybe the sarcasm didn't come through well enough. But yes, I agree that all the points I listed show how pathetic or enforcement of immigration law is and how we're being taken advantage, willingly, by anyone who can make it here.
I'm a former green card holder, and I've never personally felt it was a slap in the face. There are still a lot of benefits to the legal route, and knowing it took significant resources and time for an upper-class white kid from Australia gives me a bit of sympathy for the farm worker from Mexico.
Children born in this country are American citizens, entitled to all the rights and privileges generations of American citizens, a great many of them immigrants themselves, fought and died for. If you object to that, take up your case with the US Constitution, not the major cities of America.
That has nothing to do with the fact that if you are an illegal immigrant yourself there are cities in this country that refuse to obey immigration law. Again, the point is "why bother" if there are politicians and cities willing to bend over backwards for you.
I don't know what you're on about now, but a big chunk of your last comment talked about the advantages that accrue to children born in the United States. Regardless of the circumstances of those children, they are American citizens, full stop. They "get to use our schools" because they're citizens. They "get in-state tuition" because they are citizens. That is how citizenship works in the US: we don't have two classes of it.
I'm really not interested in the rest of your argument.
> That has nothing to do with the fact that if you are an illegal immigrant yourself there are cities in this country that refuse to obey immigration law.
No, there are cities that refuse to expend local resources enforcing federal immigration law, leaving that enforcement to the feds.
This is not refusing to obey federal immigration law; in fact, the freedom of states (and therefore subordinate entities like cities, if not prohibited by state law) to refuse to enforce federal law is inherent in the Constitutional separation of state and federal spheres of sovereignty. This freedom was the basis of laws adopted by numerous states prohibiting state enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Laws in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842).
USA's birthright citizenship is somewhat unique amongst countries. There's nothing wrong with questioning whether continuing the policy is good for America with the considerable amount of illegal immigration we have (estimates are that 7.5% of American citizens are born to illegal aliens).
Birthright citizenship isn't even universal. For example, birthright citizenship does not apply to diplomats. And the language of the 14th amendment, as to whether it applies to illegal aliens, has never been tested at the Supreme Court level. The key phrase being "and subject to the juridiction thereof". It's certainly at least questionable that children of citizens of other countries born here are subject to our jurisdiction.
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment reads, plainly:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Earlier drafts of the amendment read differently; for instance, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". That the language didn't survive is telling. More telling is the debate about native American tribal sovereignty, in which context the jurisdictional limit makes sense: in effect, you're a citizen if you're born in the US and not subject to the laws of a native American tribe (SCOTUS acknowledged this, in a birthright citizenship case: Elk v Wilkins).
Wong Kim Ark is clearer about this: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a minimalistic way of expressing "everyone born here" except:
* Members of Indian tribes
* Children born of alien enemies in a hostile occupation
* Children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state
In all three cases you have classes of people who are not just aliens, but aliens formally exempted while in the country from some or all of US law. Hence: subject to jurisdiction.
So I think we can put to rest the idea that this has gone untested by the Supreme Court.
Regardless, the (relatively recent) notion that you can negate ~150 years of birthright citizenship by parsing "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is about as credible as the idea that we can ban guns because of the 2nd Amendment's "in a well-regulated militia" qualifier.
> Changing it would require a constitutional amendment.
That's a matter of opinion. "Settled legal doctrine" changes all the time. Every administration advances their own agendas by changing the context and arguments or straight up defying a prior decisions. Stating a "my best guess is it needs an amendament" is the only thing that can be said. This is not the same as saying "can't happen without an amendment".
Can you think of one with as strong a constitutional basis as birthright citizenship that "changes all the time"? The US government under multiple administrations struggled mightily for decades to revoke the citizenship of a single naturalized Nazi. No administration has the slightest chance of depriving millions of current citizens of citizenship by having strong feelings about it.
"If a baby with foreign parents is born on a plane flying above the United States, the baby is automatically granted American citizenship. However, if the baby is born while flying over the ocean, its nationality depends on the country from which the plane is registered."
The focus on legality and absolute enforcement of the law I think is cover, dog-whistle language, for anti-immigrant discrimination. (I'm speaking generally; I don't pretend to read the mind of everyone who says it, including the parent - I expect many are repeating talking points they've heard.)
For example, most laws are enforced unevenly and incompletely. Insider trading, for example, is widely practiced and rarely punished (EDIT: AFAIK, but I've seen plenty of serious evidence of it). Speeding, labor laws (making people work off-the-books, ignoring overtime, etc.), sexual assault rarely results in conviction, burglary, illegal activities by government itself (politicians, law enforcement, etc.).
To be incensed that immigration laws are not enforced completely seems disingenuous. That doesn't mean there are no issues to address regarding immigration, but I don't believe the issue is the rule of law. (In fact, to be incensed about anything is a good sign that there's not a lot of reason behind it - anger is cover for lack of reason and is a propaganda tool.)
It's particularly sad that people want to enforce the law on the weak and poor, the 'war on drugs' is another example, and not the people who can defend themselves and who are doing far more damage.
I clarified my statement to say I don't have direct knowledge. But do you? I know they have compliance departments, but every town has law enforcement and yet crime still happens.
I've worked in finance. Even if you're a ground-level shmuck without the means to insider trade you're still heavily regulated. Most firms require you to report investments and any trades you make as soon as you make them. Often the regulations extend to your immediate family as well. The only people I can imagine getting away with insider trading are those who don't have a direct connection to the business and trade amounts small enough that it's hard to prove.
So, yes, I'd say that people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it. Quite different from petty crime in a town (or immigration), where nobody is really incentivized to do much about it until it gets really bad.
> people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it
We're talking theoretically: Your point is one factor. Another is the profit from insider trading may far exceed the reward. Also, people who report it must become 'rats'; they risk sending their coworkers (and possibly friends) to jail, never working again on Wall Street, being completely ostracized socially and in the industry, and having the reputation of a traitor.
But again, that's theoretical. I don't believe I know how it works in practice without some good inside sources.
Do you know how much Martha Stewart went to prison over? $45,763. And she was a wealthy, well connected celebrity. Risk v. reward skews heavily towards risk.
As far as being a rat 1). you can face prosecution for being aware of insider trading without reporting it and 2). anyone who's convicted legally cannot work for any SEC regulated institution ever again.
I'm sure some people do insider trading and get away with it, but some people also rob banks and get away with it. I just don't see any evidence pointing to the prosecution of it being lax.
> Do you know how much Martha Stewart went to prison over? $45,763
That's just one example, and probably not a representative one, being a high-profile case. Sometimes they are made examples of.
> Risk v. reward skews heavily towards risk. ... I just don't see any evidence pointing to the prosecution of it being lax.
I don't see much evidence either way except for the SEC's billions in fines which someone cited above, which necessarily mean that it's happening in large volumes.
"To be incensed that immigration laws are not enforced completely seems disingenuous."
I'll bet $1000 that everyone concerned about illegal migration would absolutely support going after crooked bankers.
Nobody will do it for them, certainly not Trump, and not Hillary - the Clintons are very deeply in the pockets of the banks.
Surely Sanders would - he's a good antagonist, but he's not quite the guy America would elect.
And 'the war on drugs' is very real, your statement is very unsympathetic to those who have lost lives and friends. Opiate overdoes - often from prescription drugs are a really huge problem, same with Meth. Even if drug use were treated as a medical issue and not a criminal one - the 'war on drugs' would still continue against dealers, and as the health community fights addiction.
I'm not sure what that means. Certainly it's a real policy and there are real problems with drugs that should be addressed. The policy hasn't seemed effective, and has caused great harm to very large numbers of people - as is often the case, the poor and defenseless.
There can be substantive debate about how governments should prioritize policies to discourage or reduce the incentives for illegal immigrants. But the fact that a sudden heart attack/gunshot victim who has no health insurance gets priority over me in the ER, despite my perfect history of paying my bills, isn't enough to convince me to go uninsured.
I am in the U.S. on a legal visa, and I come from one of the countries often accused of having mostly undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Whatever I might think of the legal immigration process, I would never be able to put up with what an undocumented immigrant needs to put up with, even in S.F.
Let's see: You can't work for any large employer, as e-verify will likely catch you or else you will have to resort to organized crime to borrow someone's identity, at a price. You will not be able to travel, let alone internationally, but not even out of the city, without putting yourself at risk. Even staying put and the city being a sanctuary city doesn't prevent you from looking over your shoulder your entire life, because an ICE agent might still decide to deport you with or without cooperation from the local police. If you are ever detained under suspicious of a crime, however minor (speeding, jaywalking), you could be deported, even in a sanctuary city. A speeding ticket is an inconvenience for most people I know, but for an undocumented worker it can mean losing a life that they have built over 20+ years. It is literally signing up for being a second class person in a place where your entire life can be upended without notice and where your ability to plan your life or move around is severely limited.
People like me put up with the legal visa process, but I would never put up with what the undocumented population goes through. I have plenty of options that would be more attractive to me than doing that, both in my country of origin and elsewhere around the world. The reason they put up with that? In many cases they are running away from actual life-threatening violence and destitution caused by a drug of wars fought with American weapons over access to the American drug-consumers market (because, yeah, that whole narrative of "they have a lot of problems and they are bringing them here!" fails to account that a lot of those problems exist only due to proximity and relations with the U.S., even when they are not a matter of official U.S. policy).
One reason I posted this is that it gives the immigrants access to real expertise: An app designed by experts, and access to real legal advice. (Caveat: I don't know about the quality of the app or the lawyers beyond what this article says.)
I've seen good-willed people try to create their own apps, advice, etc. But without expertise, the best intentions may lead to very bad results. You wouldn't well-intentioned lawyers giving immigrants IT security advice.
You really need to make a Spanish language version available from the home page.
Nowhere do I see an easy way to translate the page, or an indication as to what languages the information has been translated to.
Your primary audience is going to be native Spanish speakers, they likely have English language skills, but will be much more comfortable in their first language.
Think about how this impediment is effecting your conversions, and your prospective customers ability to use your service.
Perhaps the interest of the company is not so much to provide their 'product' to low-income, spanish speaking families, but to make some buzz around themselves and make sure you know about it.
83 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 210 ms ] threadCould you share some examples. It would be valuable to learn about the reality of these issues on a personal level, rather than statistics.
> refugees, poors, whatever you call them
Let's call them people: People who are refugees, people who are poor, etc.
(It's a general point and not a criticism of the parent, which like any comment I don't think should be taken literally and dissected.)
[0] http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~arobic/funny/babies.html
So for example of a situation...
Immigrant I comes in my country. He's intercepted by the police, I is sick, so the police send him to hospital. As the guy as no social security number, the hospital gives him a temporary one. The hospital pays the bill (yes, my country is socially very advanced). Then guy is better but, because the hospital paid the bill, he now has a special "register number" (more or less a social security number). The guy now reaches a "social help center". They find him a place to sleep. At the same time the guy request a request for asylum. For that he needs a lawyer because, well, he doesn't speak our language and our administration is sometimes complex. Now the guy is interviewed, because the state wants to make sure he is in the condition for asylum. Problem, he'll have to wait 6 months before the first real interview. So the guy starts to run out of money (eating, paying lawyer,...) so he seeks friends. Ah, those friends are somewhere else in my country. So he moves. Ah, friends are in deep shit for some reason, so he moves again. Now he has to be tied to another center for social help, more papers, more complex administration. He now has his first interview. Not a good one, the guy didn't manage to offer all the proofs. So the lawyer will help him to gather some more proofs. Second interview, better this time, he's on track to be recognized as a political refugee; but that'll take a year or two. More lawyers, more money, more small job, more moves from place to place. And all of this is OK if the guy keeps sane (yes, they are people who try to abuse the weaks).
If this sound like a pile of facts, it is. But all those facts are gathered, analyzed, to determine what kind of help the person can receive from the state. And that makes my little database and rule model extremely complicated (or sophisticated, depending on your point of view).
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
MOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Having to adjust to a new culture is not really fun (unless you had an interest in that culture for some reason; but this did not apply to "poor"immigrants).
As an immigrant, let me tell you that immigration had a huge positive impact my family's lives. Of course fixing my country would be great... if it were even remotely possible.
The decision is very easy. Obtaining the citizenship, on the other hand, is not easy.
It's very easy to decide to give up citizenship in your native land and move to strange new place? I don't see that as true.
Okay, if you say so, but that's not what I was disputing.
> Most people just want to get a citizenship because their own country's passport sucks and their country's economy and education and health care sucks.
IMO, the economy, the education system, and the health care system are fundamental to society, and if these suck, then moving out and immigrating into a better country sounds like a perfectly reasonable choice to me. Immigrants are trying to secure the best futures for their families.
The U.S. culture is whatever the people make it. Italian immigrants brought Italalian food; Mexican immigrants brought Mexican food.
Regardless, the parent claim is made for all first generation immigrants, historically; you can read it over and over in history books: They keep to themselves, speak their own language, etc. The research I saw (long ago) said the second generation are part of the 'American' culture; the third generation intermarries at a rate of about 80% (based on vague recollection, but the number was of that order).
EDIT: It makes sense: I would say almost anyone in their 30s or older or even in their 20s, if they moved to a country with a different culture and language (e.g., U.S. to Russia or Japan), would continue to speak English at home, eat American food, read English books and watch English movies, and hang around other immigrants. Their kids would be Russian/Japanese, however.
What is this claim based on? It's very hard to believe that Somalis or Syrians, for example, or any of the hungry, tired and poor who emigrate to the U.S. aren't far better off.
It helped my ancestors immensely; our family is immeasurably better off than those left behind, who probably are wiped out and almost certainly not up to our standard of living.
When I applied for my green card I thought the whole process was pretty simple and straightforward. I do think it might be harder for someone with more complicated circumstances, or who doesn't speak english as a first language. But I do find it surprising how hard many people with (what seem to me to be) simple cases think it is...
So no, the process is not pretty simple and straightforward for a great many applicants.
I can only speak to the experience coming from the UK (and I confess to assuming that the experience from Canada is comparable), and that's where I find surprise: people from the UK who presumably went through the same experience as me often claim that it's impossible to navigate without a lawyer. That's just not true.
That read as a snarky criticism of a claim I never made.
The fact that you're supplying isn't really a contradiction of or great addition to anything I said in my narrow comment: I explicitly acknowledged it myself. I wouldn't mind that, but it isn't very nice to accompany it with snark and misrepresentation.
To expand on this, immigrant visas in most (but not all) categories are actually what is limited; for people that don't get in on a dual intent visa like the H-1B first (i.e., the vast majority of prospective legal immigrants), that means entry is limited on that basis, not the status transition to an LPR from some other legally-present status.
Maybe. US immigration law and the implementing regulation is complex and there's some confusing grey areas. This source seems to indicate that O-1 is (or was as of 2011) treated as dual intent in that you can apply for permanent residency while on it, but also seems to indicate that you still need to return to your country of origin rather than transition in place. [0]
> Also is there a rough estimate of how long wait times are for different countries of Origin?
This might help, though it's technically how long people now being admitted in each category/country have waited from establishing eligibility rather than how long people entering the queue now with wait. [1]
[0] http://www.americanlaw.com/dintent.html
[1] http://www.immihelp.com/visa-bulletin-movement/
Doing it legally is for suckers. There, I saved anyone looking to come to the US a lot of trouble.
I'm really not interested in the rest of your argument.
No, there are cities that refuse to expend local resources enforcing federal immigration law, leaving that enforcement to the feds.
This is not refusing to obey federal immigration law; in fact, the freedom of states (and therefore subordinate entities like cities, if not prohibited by state law) to refuse to enforce federal law is inherent in the Constitutional separation of state and federal spheres of sovereignty. This freedom was the basis of laws adopted by numerous states prohibiting state enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Laws in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842).
Birthright citizenship isn't even universal. For example, birthright citizenship does not apply to diplomats. And the language of the 14th amendment, as to whether it applies to illegal aliens, has never been tested at the Supreme Court level. The key phrase being "and subject to the juridiction thereof". It's certainly at least questionable that children of citizens of other countries born here are subject to our jurisdiction.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Earlier drafts of the amendment read differently; for instance, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". That the language didn't survive is telling. More telling is the debate about native American tribal sovereignty, in which context the jurisdictional limit makes sense: in effect, you're a citizen if you're born in the US and not subject to the laws of a native American tribe (SCOTUS acknowledged this, in a birthright citizenship case: Elk v Wilkins).
Wong Kim Ark is clearer about this: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a minimalistic way of expressing "everyone born here" except:
* Members of Indian tribes
* Children born of alien enemies in a hostile occupation
* Children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state
In all three cases you have classes of people who are not just aliens, but aliens formally exempted while in the country from some or all of US law. Hence: subject to jurisdiction.
So I think we can put to rest the idea that this has gone untested by the Supreme Court.
Regardless, the (relatively recent) notion that you can negate ~150 years of birthright citizenship by parsing "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is about as credible as the idea that we can ban guns because of the 2nd Amendment's "in a well-regulated militia" qualifier.
It's certainly not unique. It's the norm in the Americas, including for example Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
> It's certainly at least questionable that children of citizens of other countries born here are subject to our jurisdiction.
Some people question whether you have to pay income tax too.
Jus soli in the United States is long since settled legal doctrine. Changing it would require a constitutional amendment.
That's a matter of opinion. "Settled legal doctrine" changes all the time. Every administration advances their own agendas by changing the context and arguments or straight up defying a prior decisions. Stating a "my best guess is it needs an amendament" is the only thing that can be said. This is not the same as saying "can't happen without an amendment".
Can you think of one with as strong a constitutional basis as birthright citizenship that "changes all the time"? The US government under multiple administrations struggled mightily for decades to revoke the citizenship of a single naturalized Nazi. No administration has the slightest chance of depriving millions of current citizens of citizenship by having strong feelings about it.
"If a baby with foreign parents is born on a plane flying above the United States, the baby is automatically granted American citizenship. However, if the baby is born while flying over the ocean, its nationality depends on the country from which the plane is registered."
Unless you want to have a career, make money, or succeed instead of merely survive. Then, doing it legally is pretty obviously the way to go.
For example, most laws are enforced unevenly and incompletely. Insider trading, for example, is widely practiced and rarely punished (EDIT: AFAIK, but I've seen plenty of serious evidence of it). Speeding, labor laws (making people work off-the-books, ignoring overtime, etc.), sexual assault rarely results in conviction, burglary, illegal activities by government itself (politicians, law enforcement, etc.).
To be incensed that immigration laws are not enforced completely seems disingenuous. That doesn't mean there are no issues to address regarding immigration, but I don't believe the issue is the rule of law. (In fact, to be incensed about anything is a good sign that there's not a lot of reason behind it - anger is cover for lack of reason and is a propaganda tool.)
It's particularly sad that people want to enforce the law on the weak and poor, the 'war on drugs' is another example, and not the people who can defend themselves and who are doing far more damage.
Join a finance firm and tell that to your compliance department, they'll get a kick out of it.
If you want hard data, in 2016 the SEC handed out $4B in fines: https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2016-212.html
> If you want hard data, in 2016 the SEC handed out $4B in fines
Possibly a sign that it's still widespread; and the SEC can't catch everyone, so more must be going on.
https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/owb-tips.shtml
So, yes, I'd say that people with direct knowledge of actual insider trading have a strong incentive to report it. Quite different from petty crime in a town (or immigration), where nobody is really incentivized to do much about it until it gets really bad.
We're talking theoretically: Your point is one factor. Another is the profit from insider trading may far exceed the reward. Also, people who report it must become 'rats'; they risk sending their coworkers (and possibly friends) to jail, never working again on Wall Street, being completely ostracized socially and in the industry, and having the reputation of a traitor.
But again, that's theoretical. I don't believe I know how it works in practice without some good inside sources.
As far as being a rat 1). you can face prosecution for being aware of insider trading without reporting it and 2). anyone who's convicted legally cannot work for any SEC regulated institution ever again.
I'm sure some people do insider trading and get away with it, but some people also rob banks and get away with it. I just don't see any evidence pointing to the prosecution of it being lax.
That's just one example, and probably not a representative one, being a high-profile case. Sometimes they are made examples of.
> Risk v. reward skews heavily towards risk. ... I just don't see any evidence pointing to the prosecution of it being lax.
I don't see much evidence either way except for the SEC's billions in fines which someone cited above, which necessarily mean that it's happening in large volumes.
I'll bet $1000 that everyone concerned about illegal migration would absolutely support going after crooked bankers.
Nobody will do it for them, certainly not Trump, and not Hillary - the Clintons are very deeply in the pockets of the banks.
Surely Sanders would - he's a good antagonist, but he's not quite the guy America would elect.
And 'the war on drugs' is very real, your statement is very unsympathetic to those who have lost lives and friends. Opiate overdoes - often from prescription drugs are a really huge problem, same with Meth. Even if drug use were treated as a medical issue and not a criminal one - the 'war on drugs' would still continue against dealers, and as the health community fights addiction.
This isn't evidence.
> 'the war on drugs' is very real
I'm not sure what that means. Certainly it's a real policy and there are real problems with drugs that should be addressed. The policy hasn't seemed effective, and has caused great harm to very large numbers of people - as is often the case, the poor and defenseless.
Let's see: You can't work for any large employer, as e-verify will likely catch you or else you will have to resort to organized crime to borrow someone's identity, at a price. You will not be able to travel, let alone internationally, but not even out of the city, without putting yourself at risk. Even staying put and the city being a sanctuary city doesn't prevent you from looking over your shoulder your entire life, because an ICE agent might still decide to deport you with or without cooperation from the local police. If you are ever detained under suspicious of a crime, however minor (speeding, jaywalking), you could be deported, even in a sanctuary city. A speeding ticket is an inconvenience for most people I know, but for an undocumented worker it can mean losing a life that they have built over 20+ years. It is literally signing up for being a second class person in a place where your entire life can be upended without notice and where your ability to plan your life or move around is severely limited.
People like me put up with the legal visa process, but I would never put up with what the undocumented population goes through. I have plenty of options that would be more attractive to me than doing that, both in my country of origin and elsewhere around the world. The reason they put up with that? In many cases they are running away from actual life-threatening violence and destitution caused by a drug of wars fought with American weapons over access to the American drug-consumers market (because, yeah, that whole narrative of "they have a lot of problems and they are bringing them here!" fails to account that a lot of those problems exist only due to proximity and relations with the U.S., even when they are not a matter of official U.S. policy).
I've seen good-willed people try to create their own apps, advice, etc. But without expertise, the best intentions may lead to very bad results. You wouldn't well-intentioned lawyers giving immigrants IT security advice.
You really need to make a Spanish language version available from the home page.
Nowhere do I see an easy way to translate the page, or an indication as to what languages the information has been translated to.
Your primary audience is going to be native Spanish speakers, they likely have English language skills, but will be much more comfortable in their first language.
Think about how this impediment is effecting your conversions, and your prospective customers ability to use your service.
The point I was trying to make is that it is in the interest of the company and it's users to make translated versions easily available.