galoisien

If you believed American society to be the most enlightened, to have the best economic and political models against other countries, why shouldn't the best system eventually absorb the rest of the world? It would after all, improve overall efficiency. If you believe it is the system that makes the best use of the resources that are put into put as input, not in the least because that system is also based on the concepts of self-interest where each individual has a stake in temporarily aiding his peer, then eventually we shall have converted those poor and uneducated into our own citizens. And why not? If we are the best system, why should the other countries exist? Why should people be forever tied to their countries of birth, based on some outdated ideas of moral debt?

Nationality is superficial ... cultures and social institutions imaginary lines drawn across a map. Why must debt be confined within those lines? Take for example, border towns, where a healthy relationship and trade (even personal and cultural relationships) have developed across borders. But according to your concepts of nationalism (the belief that nationality and sovereign borders are more important than the cultural institutions that transcend borders), people across a border owe nothing to each other.

Don't tell me you have doubted that all the while? How can you possibly think I am not eager?

FiveKey

"Many (undocumented) immigrants are eager to give back to American society .... let them have the chance."

Yes, but I feel as if most people immediately think that we only want to "leech" from their society and then never give anything back.

"Too hard to answer, isn't it? Might make you have to face some painful truths."

By "cheese twist of words", I meant that it was a typical variation of "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country". *rolls eyes*

"Speaking of cheesy. I know personally some people in Korea. Every one of them has a mind."

I fail to recall when I even mentioned that people in Korea have no minds. Now I feel as if you're trying to put words in my mouth. Please read a post carefully before commenting on them. I was referring to people who are unable to obtain an education here in the U.S.

"Not at the college level."

I guess I do live in a fantasy world where everyone is highly educated, or atleast given the opportunity to become highly educated through public universities if they cannot afford to attend private universities.

zoosermom

"I guess I do live in a fantasy world where everyone is highly educated, or atleast given the opportunity to become highly educated"

I think you simply misunderstood what level of education is mandated.

""Speaking of cheesy. I know personally some people in Korea. Every one of them has a mind."

When I said that, I was poking fun at you for using the cliche that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. But I now realize that you may be too young to know what I was referring to. If so, I apologize. The quotation used to be the slogan for the United Negro College Fund.

"By "cheese twist of words", I meant that it was a typical variation of "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country". *rolls eyes*"

That's not what I meant at all. What I did mean was to ask you in complete seriousness what, if you were to get an education and become prosperous, you intended to give back.

galoisien

This thread needs a healthy dose of King Lear, Act I, scene i; particularly the parts where Cordelia makes her speeches about duty.

FiveKey

"This thread needs a healthy dose of King Lear, Act I, scene i; particularly the parts where Cordelia makes her speeches about duty."

That is my favorite play

"That's not what I meant at all. What I did mean was to ask you in complete seriousness what, if you were to get an education and become prosperous, you intended to give back."

Unless my memory serves me incorrectly, I did write in my last-last reply what I do intend to do. I can't promise enormous charitable donations or anything of the sort as I've never mentioned that I do intend to get prosperous. I doubt I'll be a Carnegie of any sort. However, I do intend to give back my mental efforts in research as I've previously mentioned:

"Although a bit blunt, it is true that I am simply a leech in the eyes of some people. However, I still do believe in returning something back to the U.S. when I am capable of doing so. I think that when I am able to legally enter the field of biomedical research, I plan to use my efforts to help find cures for certain diseases. A stretch but it isn't everyday that someone finds a new cure for a disease. Still... isn't everyone contributing to the U.S. in some form? Why does it all have to be in the form of taxes? A janitor is helping to keep a certain complex clean, a teacher is helping to foster the minds of future Americans, and even a person working at McDonalds is helping people from their hunger. I still don't understand why "contributing" to the American society has to be strictly in the form of paying taxes."

However, I cannot assume that you did not read that section of my writing. Maybe you had thought that I did not mean that in complete seriousness.

"Don't tell me you have doubted that all the while? How can you possibly think I am not eager?"

I too can't believe that anyone would question whether or not I am eager to help out the country in which I currently reside in. I'm currently not at the age to pay taxes yet, but I can assure you that if I were asked to pay, I would. I do know that my parents and my older sister pay taxes, but their cases are of no relevance to me. Am I a special pea in a pod? Maybe I am lying... What you believe is up to you, but I can safely say that I'd rather pay taxes than spend the effort to dodge them. I can't speak for everyone else in my situation.

zoosermom

"Unless my memory serves me incorrectly, I did write in my last-last reply what I do intend to do"

You did but that post was after the one I was clarifying.

" too can't believe that anyone would question whether or not I am eager to help out the country in which I currently reside in."

Have you read Galosien's posts in the other thread? In that context, it's not outrageous to wonder.

galoisien

Just because I don't flatter you doesn't mean I bear no gratefulness towards you.

FiveKey

"Have you read Galosien's posts in the other thread? In that context, it's not outrageous to wonder."

By other "thread", do you mean another topic? In that case, no. I've only been following this specific topic.

galoisien

EDIT: very weird post order .... reposting

zoosermom

"Just because I don't flatter you doesn't mean I bear no gratefulness towards you"

That's absolutely true, but you've never expressed gratitude.

galoisien

Then you have not been reading enough of my posts.

FiveKey

"Then you haven't been reading enough of my posts."

I'm not sure if you're directing that comment towards me. If so, I guess I haven't been. I had to skip some of your posts because they've been written during my school time. I don't believe that I can read everything.

galoisien

Eh -- miscommunication -- that post wasn't directed at you. The forum software was acting weird for some reason.

zoosermom

"By other "thread", do you mean another topic? In that case, no. I've only been following this specific topic."

Yes that's right. So you wouldn't know what I was talking about. But it was still a legitimate question.

nodramamama

zoosermom wrote: "'is an income tax cheat than the undocumented immigrant who is trying to legalize his/her status. '

What has been your experience (if any) in terms of illegal immigrants who aren't trying to legalize?"



Because I am an immigration attorney, obviously I meet people who are trying to obtain lawful status. Why would anyone who is content to live as an undocumented person go see an immigration attorney? Sometimes the people who come to me have lived for a very long time in the US without lawful status and without trying to legalize, either because they were unaware of opportunities to legalize, or perhaps because there was no urgent need to do so. But by the time the come to me, obviously they have some need or interest to do something -- so what is the point of your question?

My experience over the past 17 years is that every time US immigration law becomes more hostile to immigrants, undocumented people become more scared. They try to follow all the rules -- working, paying taxes, supporting kids, not accepting public benefits they may actually be entitled to in case their future immigration prospects might be compromised, not complaining about job discrimination, etc. On the other hand I have seen plenty of US citizen petitioners claiming negative income but driving new cars, paying big mortgages, etc. These tend to be independent contractors or business owners who are exceptionally "creative" in claiming business losses. This topic comes up frequently because a petitioner must sign a 10-year contract with the US government promising to repay any public benefits that the sponsored immigrant may obtain during that time period. The petitioner must provide income tax returns as evidence of sufficient income to meet the qualifications for the sponsored immigrant or find some co-sponsor who is willing to take on that risk.

And yes, there are certainly undocumented people who try to take advantage of the system -- work but not pay taxes, get benefits they are not entitled to by fraud or other devices, etc. Those so-called parasites and leaches. But these are not the majority of undocumented immigrants.

Unfortunately, for every new consult that I can help obtain lawful status, I have to tell ten others that there is nothing I can do for them. Let's just take the example of the undocumented Mexican, since they are everyone's favorite kicking post. The last time we had immigration legislation that helped undocumented Mexicans was in the 1980s with the amnesty program (people who arrived in the US prior to 1/1/82) and the agricultural workers legalization program. That's a long time ago. Since the 1980s, whenever the immigration law becomes more restrictive, it is aimed at keeping Mexicans out and forcing undocumented Mexicans who are here to leave. We had a special law in 1996 for Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Cubans and Soviet bloc nationals, but nothing for Mexican citizens. Mexicans cannot get asylum -- no political strife in Mexico.

There were two laws that Mexican undocumented immigrants used to benefit from, as did people from any other country. The first was something called "245(i)" which allowed the undocumented person to pay a fine of $1000.00 in order to be able to get a green card based on a family or work petition. This law expired in 2001 with the result that someone who came undocumented to the US and did not have a visa petition filed before 245(i) expired now has to return to the home country to apply for a green card, but then once he/she departs, cannot return for 10 years without a special and difficult to obtain waiver. Processing the waiver alone takes up to 2 years for approval, during which time the person has to stay outside the US, away from spouse, children, etc. The expiration of 245(i) has not hit undocumented people who came with a visa but overstayed as hard as it has hit people, including Mexicans, who came with no papers. This is because if you came with a visa and overstayed, then marry a US citizen, you can get your green card without having to leave. You are still an immigration violator, but you don't get punished with 10 years outside the US.

Let's take as an example a Mexican girl who came here illegally, let's just suppose as a 3-year old child brought by her parents, grows up here, graduates from high school, and eventually gets married to her US citizen boyfriend. She cannot get a green card without going back to Mexico and waiting outside possibly 10 years. But if she came from Canada, or her parents brought her here with work visas from some other country and overstayed, no problem. She is just as "illegal" as the Mexican girl, but she can stay and apply for her green card with no penalty and no requirement of staying outside the US for up to 10 years.

Another change to the immigration law that has been heartbraking for many undocumented people regardless of their country of origin was the elimination of suspension of deportation in 1997. This was a last resort for people in deportation proceedings. It was similar to an amnesty, but not something that you could apply for unless you were on the brink of being deported. Deportation could be suspended and permanent resident status granted if the person had proof that they had been living in the US for 7+ years, had no criminal record, paid income taxes, supported their children, and in every othe way were persons of good moral character. Plus they had to show that they or their legally present spouse, parent of child would suffer "extreme hardship" if the applicant was deported. So not every person with 7 years plus good moral character was eligible -- only those with extreme hardship. Fewer than 10,000 persons per year qualified.

In 1997 this law was changed to require 10 years in the US plus "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to qualifying family members. The applicant still has to show good moral character, and his/her own suffering no longer counts. Congress put a cap of 4,000 approvals per year, but since 1997 this cap has never been reached because of the ridiculously high hardship standard. For people who entered the US illegally, this may be their only hope if they are caught by immigration, but it is nearly impossible to win. Unless the applicant has at least one child with a life-threatening illness (juvenile diabetes, epilepsy, HIV are examples) they probably will not win. So, I have a lot of experience in meeting and trying to help undocumented people who would like to legalize their status, but who have no pathway to lawful status.

One famous case of a woman denied cancellation of removal involved a Mexican lady who had come to the US illegally and lived here more than 20 years. She had 5 children, all under age 18, and she was the sole support for them. She worked hard, paid her taxes, and even bought a house. She built a carwash business and employed other people. When she found herself in deportation proceedings, she sold her business to pay for her lawyer, and also to be prepared with money in hand so that she could pay off all her bills and have money to take with her if deported. She actually lost her case and was in fact deported because she would be returning to Mexico with about $50,000 cash in hand, and therefore her 5 kids would not suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship because that is relatively wealthy for her area of Mexico. None of the kids had any serious illnesses. All of the kids were US born citizens. None of them are likely attending any colleges in the US, since they had to go live in a foreign land with their mom. All of these kids can come back to the US as citizens when they are grown up, but if their education stopped as a result of their mother's deportation when they were 8 or 10 or 13 or 15 years old, what kind of future will they have? Haven't they been robbed of their "American dreams?" This is a very typical immigration story in my 17 years of experience.