Deportation of illegal immigrants increases under Obama administration

[blackangst1]

1. You are right, I was thinking of Mexican rather than hispanic so that does change things significantly. But...
2. According the January 2009 report of the DHS on the "unauthorized immigrant population" in the US, Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala accounted for 71% -- considerably more than 1/3 and significantly less than 90%.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ni_fr_2009.pdf

It also shows that while the numbers are smaller, there's been significant growth in the illegal population from the India, the Phillipines, and Korea.

The Wikipedia article also reiterate the other part of my argument -- that fully 1/2 of the illegals came here legally ( which does not include who eventually got green cards but started out illegal). If we want to control illegal immigration, we have to actually control all immigration.

Again, the problem isnt legal immigration, its illegal immigration enforcement. Ive said in other threads I dont have a problem with the legal system we have in place now, and in fact I think the only "reform" we need is to double caseworker size to 1. speed up the legal provess, and 2. give room for more thorough examination. The process itself isnt broken - the caseload IS.

Also, this quote of yours

FWIW, I think the Feds are woefully misdirected when it comes to Arizona. Instead of challenging the law under the bogus "premption" theory, they should just set up shop and proscute racial profiling if/when it occurs...IMO.

I and others have said it before, AZ are not newcomers to being targetted for racial profiling. In the last few years there have been THOUSANDS of lawsuits filed against JUST Maricopa County, and not ONE has come to fruition. I would also welcome the feds to come watch. AZ LEO are not freshman to this game, and have proven time and time again they know what the law says and what it means.

 

[Infohawk]

I and millions of LEGAL immigrants get here the right way, the LEGAL way. Everyone should be REQUIRED to do the same. NO MORE Amnesty, NO MORE paths to citizenship for ILLEGALS. NO MORE anchor babies. PERIOD!!!

Right on.

Good news no matter who's in office.

 

[Athena]

Again, the problem isnt legal immigration, its illegal immigration enforcement. Ive said in other threads I dont have a problem with the legal system we have in place now.

I do. Unrestricted legal immigration of low wage workers is just as damaging as illegal immigration...and as the work of labor economists such as George J. Borjas has shown, it acts as a magnet for larger scale illegal immigration.

 

[MJinZ]

I do. Unrestricted legal immigration of low wage workers is just as damaging as illegal immigration...and as the work of labor economists such as George J. Borjas has shown, it acts as a magnet for larger scale illegal immigration.

Well good thing the US don't want no low wage workers ya know? That's why the Mexicans can't get in legally.

 

[blackangst1]

I do. Unrestricted legal immigration of low wage workers is just as damaging as illegal immigration...and as the work of labor economists such as George J. Borjas has shown, it acts as a magnet for larger scale illegal immigration.

Sorry, but we dont have "unrestricted" legal immigration.

http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html

Any other points you may be confused about? I dont ask that condescendingly BTW.

 

[werepossum]

Uh isn't it obvious that he just mistyped and meant "AS OF JUNE 7TH"?

Probably. Other than the time frame and the amount his statement about the amount in the time frame was totally factual.

 

[nobodyknows]

Man why is it so hard for peeps to understand, you can't make public policy to scrutinize whole people groups based soley on race. We don't have a national ID system, we are not required to have on our person proof we are US citizens at all times. Until that day, the constitution says all are created equal and not are not subjected to unlawful search and seizure. You can't operate through a policy that clearly will lead to discrimnation and violate at least those two rights. Mark my words, this policy will go down in flames. Obama is taking the right approach here. Stop the enablers of illegals and you'll shut down the issue.

How is it "based soley on race"? Explain that part to me.

 

[Athena]

Sorry, but we dont have "unrestricted" legal immigration.

http://www.immigralaw.com/english/immigrationquotas.html

Any other points you may be confused about? I dont ask that condescendingly BTW.

Read the chart carefully ... there are no quotas at all on immediate family members and the total allowed for extended family members exceeds employment based visas. So, you end up with chains for low-skilled workers granted automatic visas: A brother-in-law's parents, then their children, the spouses of those children, etc. That pool, which comprises about 65% of legal residents, is largely unskilled...and under-counted when visas are discussed.

People tend to equate legal immigrants with H1B and ignore the vast majority who are uneducated and unskilled. As labor economist George Borjas has concluded "Immigrants today are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to re-quire public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities. " He's talking about legal and illegal imigrants there.

Most people don't realize that it has not always been this way. When the national immigration priorities were changed from labor needs of the country to family reunification, politicians assured the public that the number of unrestricted visas would be small. And yet we now have more people coming as immediate family members than in all the other categories combined.

The FAIR page about chain migration has more information about this - http://www.fairus.org (I can't link to it but you can see several articles about Chain Migration there).

HEAVEN'S DOOR: IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/HeavensDoor/HeavensDoor3.html

 

[blackangst1]

Read the chart carefully ... there are no quotas at all on immediate (parents, siblings, children) family members and the total allowed for extended family members exceeds employment based visas. So, you end up with chains for low-skilled workers granted automatic visas: A brother-in-law's parents, then their children, the spouses of those children, etc. That pool, which comprises about 65% of legal residents, is largely unskilled...and uncounted when people discuss visa numbers.

People tend to equate legal immigrants with H1B and ignore the vast majority who are uneducated and unskilled. As labor economist George Borjas has concluded "Immigrants today are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to re-quire public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities. " He's talking about legal and illegal imigrants there.

Most people don't realize that it has not always been this way. When the national immigration priorities were changed from labor needs of the country to family reunification, politicians assured the public that the number of unrestricted visas would be small. And yet we now have more people coming as immediate family members than in all the other categories combined.

The FAIR page about chain migration has more information about this - http://www.fairus.org

HEAVEN'S DOOR: IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/HeavensDoor/HeavensDoor3.html

Right. There is a cap of 448,000 total family visas alloted each year. Is it alot? Yes. Is it "unlimited" as you claimed? No. Im not sure the point of your last post, but its good info.

Also, per your page,

Four of the five admissions categories for family immigration are reserved for U.S. citizens. This means that immigrants must become naturalized citizens to be able to sponsor relatives in those categories. An immigrant is eligible for naturalization five years after being admitted as a legal permanent immigrant (three years for the spouse of a U.S. citizen).

So the majority of FAMILY immigrants are to US citizens/naturalized citizens. I dont have a problem with that.

Anyhow, getting OT of the thread.

 

[Athena]

Right. There is a cap of 448,000 total family visas alloted each year.

No, there is no cap whatsoever on immediate family members. The 448,000 is for extended family members.

So the majority of FAMILY immigrants are to US citizens/naturalized citizens. I dont have a problem with that.

Think about it, the immigration policy of the country is in the hands of people non-native born citizens.

Every congressional committe that has seriously considered immigration overhaul has identified the family reunification policy as a significant problem. Alan Simpson, Barbara Jordan, and many others have recommended that extended family visas be discontinued and increasing the number of employment based visas.

 

[blackangst1]

No, there is no cap whatsoever on immediate family members. The 448,000 is for extended family members.Think about it, the immigration policy of the country is in the hands of people non-native born citizens.

Every congressional committe that has seriously considered immigration overhaul has identified the family reunification policy as a significant problem. Alan Simpson, Barbara Jordan, and many others have recommended that extended family visas be discontinued and increasing the number of employment based visas.

I understand your point.

http://www.myvisa.com/Visasage/PRnumber.htm

There is no numerical cap on the number of immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children and parents of U.S. citizens) admitted annually to the U.S. as immigrants. However, the number of immediate relatives are subtracted from the 480,000 cap on family-based immigration to determine the number of other family-based immigrants to be admitted in the following year (with a floor of 226,000).​

Anyhow, I dont quite get when you say "Think about it, the immigration policy of the country is in the hands of people non-native born citizens." AFAIK, non-native born citizens dont write policy.​

 

[Athena]

The information on that page is out of date. According to DHS, over 1 million people were granted residency status in the US in 2009. That included 535,554 immediate family members and an additional 211,849 extended family members were admitted. Compare that with a total of 144,034 employment based permits.

U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2009
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf


The numbers of legal, low/unskilled immigrants that are admitted are huge and have just as much of an effect on both the schools, jobs, and community services as illegal immigrants. We can't have a rational discussion about immigration policy without talking about both legal and illegal immigration. The interests of the citizenry should come first not the desires of immigrants.

 

[blackangst1]

The information on that page is out of date. According to DHS, over 1 million people were granted residency status in the US in 2009. That included 535,554 immediate family members and an additional 211,849 extended family members were admitted. Compare that with a total of 144,034 employment based permits.

U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2009
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf


The numbers of legal, low/unskilled immigrants that are admitted are huge and have just as much of an effect on both the schools, jobs, and community services as illegal immigrants. We can't have a rational discussion about immigration policy without talking about both legal and illegal immigration. The interests of the citizenry should come first not the desires of immigrants.

OK.

We'll agree to disagree on a few things I suppose. Largest of which is legal and illegal immigration, and how to deal with it. I understand many illegals here are overstays. I get that. But that comes back to enforcement (again). USCIS is just severaly understaffed. Thats about it. As far as illegal goes, well, again, its enforcement. I have to meet or talk to anyone intelligent enough about immigration that can tell me what "reform" means, other than amnesty. Speaking of which, I would like to know what checks and balances people would forego in the name of amnesty. In other words, what part of our current LEGAL system would someone bypass to get illegals legal. Unfortunately most people dont know enough about legal immigration to tell me. Im not a specialist, but I guarantee I know MUCH more than 90% of the population through personal experience.

Anyhow. Perhaps reform needs to take a look at cutting back on the numbers we legally allow. Perhaps. But thats for another thread and another discussion. The first, and most important issue, is ILLEGAL immigration, and what to do about it. My answer: ENFORCEMENT.

 

[MJinZ]

The information on that page is out of date. According to DHS, over 1 million people were granted residency status in the US in 2009. That included 535,554 immediate family members and an additional 211,849 extended family members were admitted. Compare that with a total of 144,034 employment based permits.

U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2009
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf


The numbers of legal, low/unskilled immigrants that are admitted are huge and have just as much of an effect on both the schools, jobs, and community services as illegal immigrants. We can't have a rational discussion about immigration policy without talking about both legal and illegal immigration. The interests of the citizenry should come first not the desires of immigrants.

I think YOU need to think a little bit more about it before expressing a low-rent opinion.

Immigration is simple - attract skill and talent

Family immigration is to RETAIN skill and talent

Most often, immediate family members are either young or old. One does not do work and are supported by family, and the other goes to school to become skilled and educated. Kids or Parents. Sponsorship takes years, not days.

Illegal immigrants are droves of grown up unskilled laborers that then exponentially cause financial burdens. Their numbers grow by about how fast they can have babies and how far they can swim and jump across the borders.

Illegal immigration is immigration anti-policy. It's unmitigated immigration. There is no point in talking about legal immigration if you don't think illegal immigration is a problem (you clearly don't, really). And illegal immigration should obviously be the first thing you target if you care about immigration policy at all.

It's like putting out the fire before getting fireproofed.

Stopping the thieves before dealing with the welfare abusers.

 

[Athena]

I think YOU need to think a little bit more about it before expressing a low-rent opinion.

There is no point in talking about legal immigration if you don't think illegal immigration is a problem (you clearly don't, really). And illegal immigration should obviously be the first thing you target if you care about immigration policy at all.

And I think you need to read up about the history of immigration policy over the past 45 years instead of assuming that the illegal immigration problem doesn't have its roots in the overall policy. I absolutely believe that illegal immigration is a problem -- and I think that anyone who believes that the solution to the visible problems is to focus only on enfocement of illegal immigration is deluding him/herself.

I lived overseas for a number of years and was apalled when I returned to see what had happened in the US. That's when I started reading up on labor economics and immigration policy. During the so-called Golden Age of immigration, the country's focus was on getting labor needed by the economy, not family.

The problems we are having were forecast during the last round of amnesty and again in the early 90s. We aren't going to solve them just by enforcing policy. Longterm solutions will require actual changes.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...-fingerprint-secure-communities_n_660140.html

I am really digging this new Secure Communities program. I have always believed in instant deportation for illegal immigrants who choose to commit a crime.

 

[xj0hnx]

The problems we are having were forecast during the last round of amnesty and again in the early 90s. We aren't going to solve them just by enforcing policy. Longterm solutions will require actual changes.

If we actually enforced the already existing laws it would be fine, they do not.

 

[bullbert]

Obama deserves a lot of credit because he is attacking the problem and not just the symptom. Illegal immigration is a symptom largely in apart to illegal hiring by many companies. By stopping the illegal hiring it will vastly and quickly become a serious deterrant to entering the country illegally. People will still want to come here, but they will be more than apt to do it right so they can work. If he pounds on these businesses for another year or so really hard, along with getting some type of reform in place our illegal problem will not be the major issue it is now. If anyone thinks that we will stop people from entering the country 100% is not being realistic.

You complain about not attacking the problem but just the symptoms. You are doing the same thing. The problem is Federal Welfare which pays people to NOT take the jobs that go wanting and are eventually filled by illegal immigrants. Eliminate Federally Sponsored Welfare, restore locally sponsored support (ask your grandparents or your great-grandparents), and this will "encourage"*** the unemployed to migrate to the millions of still available job vacated by the deported illegals.


*** some will still prefer to lounge, complain, and starve, but that is not the choice most will make

 

[EagleKeeper]

It used to be that you can not bring people into the country unless you are a US CITIZEN. Green Cards (legal immigrants) can not.

So a person has to have citizenship prior to requsting visas for the family.


I do not know if such has changed.

 

[bullbert]

It used to be that you can not bring people into the country unless you are a US CITIZEN. Green Cards (legal immigrants) can not.

So a person has to have citizenship prior to requsting visas for the family.


I do not know if such has changed.

That was not true in the 1990s, and I assume it is still legal now.

 

[her209]

You complain about not attacking the problem but just the symptoms. You are doing the same thing. The problem is Federal Welfare which pays people to NOT take the jobs that go wanting and are eventually filled by illegal immigrants. Eliminate Federally Sponsored Welfare, restore locally sponsored support (ask your grandparents or your great-grandparents), and this will "encourage"*** the unemployed to migrate to the millions of still available job vacated by the deported illegals.

*** some will still prefer to lounge, complain, and starve, but that is not the choice most will make

Clearly someone who won't take a shit job because of shit pay is lazy. Republicans knows this.

 

[her209]

If we actually enforced the already existing laws it would be fine, they do not.

Like cracking down on hiring of illegal immigrants.

 

[EndGame]

Like cracking down on hiring of illegal immigrants.

Exactly! Things are getting better and with the addition of the new law in AZ, things will continue in that direction!

 

[shira]

So, we're back to the old "but... but...Boooooooosh!" line of reasoning? Who cares if the numbers are up slightly compared to what they were in 2009 or 2008. The number is still just a tiny fraction of what they should be, and the border still needs closed. Who cares how many booooosh had deported.

Apparently right-wingers didn't care when Booooosh was in office. But isn't it interesting that those same right-wingers are now all raving anti-illegal-immigrationists now that Obama is President? One might conclude that there's a political spin to the criticism.

Of course, YOU would never put a political spin on things, would you?

 

[classy]

You complain about not attacking the problem but just the symptoms. You are doing the same thing. The problem is Federal Welfare which pays people to NOT take the jobs that go wanting and are eventually filled by illegal immigrants. Eliminate Federally Sponsored Welfare, restore locally sponsored support (ask your grandparents or your great-grandparents), and this will "encourage"*** the unemployed to migrate to the millions of still available job vacated by the deported illegals.


*** some will still prefer to lounge, complain, and starve, but that is not the choice most will make

Okay been there done this dog and pony show. Okay you don't like welfare, thanks, move on, this is about illegal immigrants. You got other social issues you don't like, fine. But trying to wrap them all up in a problem that has zero to do with it, is stupid. Most come here and gain illegal employment. That is the biggest issue we have, the enablers. Stop the biggest enablers and you'll curb the problem. If you hate welfare so much walk over to your neighbor's trailer and tell them to get a job...........