re: "An Immigrant Who Didn't Cut The Line: 103-Year-Old Cambodian Woman Becomes A U.S. Citizen"

CAA loves legal immigrants.

First glance at the proposed RAISE Act.

RAISE = Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy

You can read the proposed legislation at Sen. Cotton's web page.

A couple of things caught my notice beyond the obvious things which are summarized, also by Sen. Cotton, here.

First, the obvious:

 - Diversity Visa (DV) program eliminated;

 - Refugees capped at 50,000 per annum;

 - Spouses and minor children still eligible to immigrate but not other extended family members;

 - New non-immigrant visa category, renewable every five years, for elderly parents;

 - Grandfathers pending immigrant visa cases for eliminated categories but only if applied for before the introduction of this bill and scheduled to travel within one year of the bill's passage;

 - Introduces a points-based system to replace current employment-based visa categories;

 - Makes naturalization of an immigrant conditional on the immigrant's sponsor having reimbursed any benefits received by the immigrant during the sponsorship.

There are a bunch of little editorial points, basically housekeeping and neatening-up the existing statute, plus replacing "Attorney General" with "Secretary of Homeland Security" in a few places where this should already have happened since INS (among other things) moved from DOJ to DHS.

CAA is agnostic about eliminating the DV visa.  It's probably served its purpose if its purpose was to, er, diversify the flow of immigrants to the U.S., given how long it's been running.  So declare it a success and move on.  Since immigrant communities now exist (shout-out to Minnesota!) from lots of places (shout out to Somalia!) where few-to-no immigrants used to come from, "chain" immigration from those places will undoubtedly continue, although significantly diminished due to the elimination of non-immediate relative visa categories.

The number of refugees the U.S. takes-in is at the discretion of the president, under current law.  Fifty-thousand is at the high end of the numbers the U.S. has tended to receive over time and, frankly, if there should be a time and situation where president decides a number exceeding that should be admitted then he or she can always ask Congress for a higher number that year (and or succeeding years), and make the case for it.  It's not like trying to pass a Constitutional amendment, and if the need is compelling perhaps even congressmen and senators can be persuaded.

Eliminating the family-based visa categories beyond spouses and minor children is a big deal.  It will drastically clamp-down on "chain immigration" over time, which I think is the point.  I think there's room for improvement on how it's implemented, purely on the basis of fairness, which I'll address below.

Something I noticed in the bill which I haven't seen commented upon elsewhere is changing the age for minor children from 21 to 18 years.  It's a fair point, we consider children in most respects to be adults and on their own, more-or-less, at age 18.  It also doesn't shut the door to the 18+ year-old children from applying for student visas and coming over when the rest of their family immigrates; in fact, that would make a lot of sense, assuming the families have the resources to support it.  They would then, as they finished their higher (and higher) education be free to apply to stay under the points-based system being introduced by this bill.  

For those cases where the families don't have the resources to put their children into colleges and universities, what I'd like to see is a conditional status created that would allow the 18-21 year-old children, assuming they were otherwise qualified, to enlist in the military or naval services so they could qualify for citizenship on their own efforts.  Just a suggestion.

The five-year renewable non-immigrant visa for elderly parents makes a lot of sense and I'm not going to rake it over here.  CAA has issued immigrant visas to plenty of people who would fit into this category.  It's certainly an interesting idea and open to debate.

The points-based immigration system designed to replace our existing employment-based petitions is a system similar to that used by both Canada and Australia, two immigrant-friendly countries much like our own in many respects.  There's lots of room for haggling over how the points might be allocated, but there's also no reason it couldn't be revisited in the future to adjust how points are earned.

The issue of grandfathering pending immigrant cases where the visa category is being eliminated touches a nerve for me.  The numbers of visas for non-immediate relatives has an annual numeric cap, apportioned by country.  There are some countries (Mexico and Philippines spring readily to mind) where the wait is decades long.  These are people who, dutifully complying with our laws, have been patiently waiting to legally immigrate to the U.S., sometimes literally dying before their "number" comes up.  The way I read the draft bill, the first cut-off is that they have to have filed their petition no later than the when this bill was introduced.  The second cut-off is that they have to be scheduled arrive in the U.S. no later than one year after (or the day before one year) after the bill is passed into law.

What I don't see is the elimination of the numerical limitation, so that those waiting all these years for their turn, actually get their turn.  Perhaps I missed it?

CAA is all about legal immigrants lawfully complying with our immigration laws.  So it goes down sideways for us on the implementing side of the equation to be breaking faith with those who have been earnestly attempting to comply with our laws.  CAA is a big fan of people who comply with U.S. immigration laws; CAA believes people who start out by complying with U.S. immigration laws are more likely to continue being law-abiding than people who begin by ignoring or violating our laws.  Just sayin'.

CAA would like to see those waiting to obey the law get their chance to do so.  Let the bill be amended to let DHS and USCIS estimate annually how many of the pending cases they can process, irrespective of what the annual numerical limit has been, and then let USCIS and the State Department process those cases, until the backlog is gone.  Finished.  Finito.  Fertig.

re: "Political Idea Bomb #1: Rejigger the Immigration Debate"

David Brin at Contrary Brin ("Author, Futurist, Scientist") has been thinking about immigration issues.

Money quote(s):

"What is the biggest driver of this rapid change in the makeup of the U.S. citizenry? Listen to the rage, and you'd think that it was an invasion, a veritable tsunami of wetback illegals. But facts speak otherwise. The driver of demographic change in America, over the last generation or so, has been legal immigration.

When ethnic quotas on immigration were removed in 1965, the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States quadrupled, rising from 9.6 million in 1970 to nearly 38 million in 2007. In 1990, George H.W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which resulted in an increase in legal immigration to the United States by 40%.

The United States admitted more legal immigrants in the most recent decade -- ten million legal immigrants settled in the U.S. Still, this represents an annual increase of only about 0.3% as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million. A lot of people. But remember this isn't new. By comparison, the highest previous decade was the 1900s, when 8.8 million people arrived, increasing the total U.S. population by one percent every year. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

By itself, legal immigration by those reuniting with family members already (legally) in the U.S., even with so-called "chain immigration," wouldn't have resulted in the sweeping demographic changes the U.S. is experiencing, at least not this quickly.

But factor in the effects of the diversity visa lottery, the scheme where we deliberately recruit immigrants from countries who aren't as heavily represented in the flow of legal immigrants; well, that's what get us where we are now.

"(S)ince 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal immigrants, converting one kind of immigrant into the other."

This is why no one believes claims that just-one-more amnesty (by whatever name) would be the last one. Because it's been proven a lie six times already.

"(T)here are issues that run beneath issues here, and they merit your consideration. Take the criteria that the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department have been required to follow, when doling out legal immigrant visas.

For decades, the top consideration went to re-uniting family members. And at first sight, that does seem a compassionate and just basis to allow people into the country, instead of keeping folks separated from those they love.

Except... isn't that just rewarding the lucky with more luck? And when you admit a legal immigrant's brother, then does the brother's son come along? Of course the son's mother (his wife) is next. And then... her brother too? And that brother's kid and wife... and so on... Isn't it clear that there is no place to clearly draw a line?"

Actually, Congress has drawn several lines in this regard, numerically limiting the annual immigration numbers of more distant (and more adult) family members of legal residents and citizens.

Another factor is time. Those just arriving have to actually immigrate before they can file petitions for their non-immediate relatives (i.e., beyond the spouse and minor children who presumably came at the same time), they have to meet certain financial sponsorship criteria, and the whole process takes months to years before additional legal "chain" immigrants start arriving.

"If we're limited in the number of people we can absorb per year, and can only take a small fraction of those who are both deserving an eager, then why not have a fair number of those slots go to those whose arrival will benefit us all, in clearcut and immediate ways? Are they any less deserving, just because they happen to be instantly useful?

Indeed, won't the increased prosperity they help generate here allow us to be more generous to others, in the future?

Canada and Australia and the U.S. all issue a certain number of Employment-Based visas. And a strong case can be made for increasing this number, along with slots for inventors and company builders and major investors. It has even been proposed to solve our current housing crash by giving a green card to anyone who immediately buys a home with $500,000 or more in cash."

&

"It should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a mix of compassion and practicality that immigrant kids need health care and education... and we need them to be both healthy and educated."

Un-vaccinated children represent a public health vulnerability in that they constitute a potential reservoir for contagious disease. This is not news. Nor is the prospect of creating a self-perpetuating uneducated underclass much more palatable.

10/24

re: "Nuke the News: Kill the Aliens Before They Kill Us"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") is for honesty.

Money quote(s):

"Isn’t staying staying in the country illegally a crime, hence the term “illegal”? I don’t know.

I wish the pro-illegal immigration crowd would be honest and just argue for open borders with no checks on anyone instead of this “we’ll keep saying its a crime and never enforce it” position. And that’s the main thing about the pro-illegal immigration people: Dishonesty. The way they’re always trying to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration shows they know they have an untenable position and want to do anything they can to avoid dealing with it head on. That’s why we have to keep the pressure on. We can’t give up America’s sovereignty just because some people think they have a great position to win votes."

CAA is a big fan of legal immigration and legal immigrants. Mainly because they, by definition, exhibit law-abiding behavior in the course of immigration to the U.S. What's not to like about that?

CAA is not professionally unaware of the inefficiencies and burdensome requirements incorporated into the processes and system (and CAA uses that term somewhat loosely) through which legal immigrants must navigate. But CAA is also professionally aware of the many frauds and other abuses those many obstacles are intended to discourage and prevent.

8/19

re: "Let’s Talk Amnesty Again"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") speaks frankly (as only he can) about illegal immigration and amnesty.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hy bring up amnesty for illegal immigrants now? And you just know it’s a loser issue in how dishonest people excusing illegal immigration are. For one, they always try to group in illegal immigration with legal immigration since illegal immigration is pretty indefensible by itself. And the people for amnesty are always so schizophrenic on whether illegal immigration is a bad thing in the first place. Like Obama is proudly making the ridiculous claim that the border fence has been completed — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants is a good thing — but then wants us to pass amnesty — which suggests keeping out illegal immigrants isn’t a big deal. Which is it? And the amnesty people are never clear on what their endgame is. Do they want to get rid of borders? Do they want to keep a broken system they can demagogue about? Who knows. No wonder amnesty people are always turning to the racist charge since a coherent argument isn’t an option.

I think people would have a lot more sympathy, though, for illegal immigrants if they were more sorry about it. Like if they all were like, “We’re really sorry to do this, but you have to understand how much Mexico sucks and how nice your country is. You wouldn’t want to live in Mexico.” But instead illegal immigrants are all indignant we even care about this and think they’re owed citizenship. You know, we have plenty of overly-entitled, native-born people I would love to deport, so we don’t need more from out of country." (Bold type added for emphasis. - CAA.)

BG - Faster citizenship in uniform

From my archive of press clippings:

Boston Globe

Faster citizenship in uniform


February 19, 2009


THE MILITARY has long had a policy of offering accelerated citizenship to legal immigrants with green cards who volunteer for service. Now it is going to offer the same inducement to immigrants who are refugees or on temporary work or student visas. While thorough background checks will be needed to make sure the recruits aren't sleeper agents for enemy states or terrorist organizations, the program should help the Pentagon cope with two wars and the need to be prepared for other conflicts.

Read the whole article here.

Snippet(s):

"The Army, which is taking the lead on the new policy, hopes to use it to draw immigrants who have medical training or linguistic skills and familiarity with foreign cultures. The service is quick to point out that the new program is not a means of meeting overall recruitment goals."

&

"(T)he two wars of this decade have taught the military how critical it is to have troops with the ability to speak languages used in the world's hot spots, from the Pushtu of Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Somali and Swahili of East Africa. The new program also recognizes the large number of immigrant doctors and nurses working in this country, whose skills are also needed in the military. To qualify for enlistment, the immigrants will need to have been in the United States at least two years. Once sworn in, they can immediately apply for citizenship and can get it in as little as six months.

To protect against sleeper agents, all the recruits will be subject to screening by the Department of Homeland Security, in addition to the initial DHS screen done before they received their visas."