California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2012

[Warren Dew]

You actually think that immigration is keeping such good track that they control immigration by the numbers of immigrants who enter and leave? Maybe in the hundreds at best.

It happens through political feedback. People see illegal immigrants, possibly taking their jobs, they complain to their congressman about there being too many foreigners, congress votes for lower immigration quotas and other restrictions for legal immigrants.

Hasn't everyone here confirmed that it's so easy and such a straightforward process to get a green card and get naturalized?

The cases of kiki5711 and laklak's wife didn't sound really easy to me. All the examples of its being really easy to get a green card have been of people who seem to have married a U.S. citizen first.

[Tyrannical]

California Conservatives Propose 2012 Initiative to Limit Services to Illegal Immigrants

What a piece of garbage. And the title of the initiative? Talk about a shit sandwich made with Wonder bread.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2011/110438.pdf

They tried that back in '94 and it got ruled "unconstitutional" by some Federal court, though it was never taken to the Supreme Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... %281994%29

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using health care, public education, and other social services in the U.S. State of California. Voters passed the proposed law as a referendum in November 1994; it was the first time that a state had passed legislation related to immigration, customarily an issue for federal policies and programs.[1] The law was challenged in a legal suit and found unconstitutional by a federal court. In 1999, Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals against the ruling.

Passage of Proposition 187 reflected state residents' concerns about illegal immigration into the United States and the large Hispanic population in California. Opponents believed the law was discriminatory against immigrants of Hispanic origin; supporters generally insisted that their concerns were economic: that the state could not afford to provide social services for so many illegal residents

[Ronja]

The divide between the wealthy and the poor is less in the US than in most other countries. We're in the top-tier of countries relative to wealth equality.

Um.. where did you get that from?

I would like to hear that, too.

[maiforpeace]

The divide between the wealthy and the poor is less in the US than in most other countries. We're in the top-tier of countries relative to wealth equality.

Um.. where did you get that from?

I would like to hear that, too.

Income Inequality in the US

The US gini rank in income equality (27th) among the 34 "developed" countries of the OECD is higher before taxes and "transfers" are measured,[56] then after (31st) [57] -- i.e., the US has less income redistribution by government than some other post-industrial economies. However some developed countries, such as the Netherlands and Greece, have less inequality simply because incomes are more equal than in the US even before taxes.[58]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html

We didn't even make the chart on this one.

It's this continued denial that the gap between the rich and poor is widening, and our ignorance of our true place in the world (sorry, 27th is fucking pitiful) that spawned the Occupy Movement.

[laklak]

It isn't easy to get in on a work visa. Mrs. Lak is an occupational therapist, which is a profession in short supply, so she qualified for an H1B1 work visa. SHe wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance if she'd been in some other professions. She had to find an employer willing to sponsor her, which costs the employer several thousand dollars. Then she had to leave the U.S. (we were here buying a house and getting settled) for 6 months while her application was processed. Then she was restricted to working for that employer, unless she could find another employer willing (at a cost of several thousand bucks) to take over her visa. We dealt with that crap for a year, then finally got married.

Once married it's a doddle. The interview for her green card was a formality, we sat in the agent's office and talked about Kruger National Park (he'd just visited there). Because we hadn't been married long enough she only got a 2 year green card. Last year we filled out the forms, provided the documentation necessary to prove we are actually real, married people, and sent them $800. Three weeks later we got the 10 year green card. This March we apply for citizenship, I don't anticipate any problems.

We used a lawyer for the first green card application, basically because we'd heard so many horror stories about USCIS. Turns out it was unnecessary. Granted, the paperwork is a bit daunting, and you need to be very careful when you fill it out. If you screw it up they will kick it back to you and you have to start over. But any reasonably competent, intelligent person can handle it themselves.

They ask for a lot of documentation, because there are a lot of people who get married just for the green card. Back in the 70s I was offered 10G to marry a Filipino girl, just to get her in the country (when I found out I wasn't allowed to consummate the relationship I backed out). But again, any truly married couple will have no problem providing the required documents. They want things like utility bills, house deed or lease documents, bank account info, letters from employers and friends, that sort of thing.

So while it is a pain in the ass, it is certainly possible to immigrate to the U.S. legally. If you don't have a profession that is in demand, or are not marrying a U.S. citizen, then you probably won't get in. Too bad. No first world country had open borders, and many (Denmark for example) won't even let you in if you marry a citizen. It's easier to get into the U.S. than it is to get into the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, or pretty much any other first world country I can think of.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the short term, I don't think there is any easy answer and I know that there are many many people out there busting a gut to try and find a balance but also many who are working against that. It is a global shift of awareness that's needed and like I said, that's not coming any time soon. I'm not copping out, but I get frustrated when I think that all of the energy and output that each country individually musters could be incredibly effective if it was pooled and a more world-wide inclusive solution or plan of action devised

Is your assumption that you wouldn't take a monumental reduction in your standard of living if that sort of "pooling" were done? If so, if you think that that could be done without you and everyone like you living in conditions that would be considered unthinkable to us, I think you are not examining the world situation clearly.

[Coito ergo sum]

If fear is one of the reasons why illegal immigrants don't take the steps to make themselves legal, then a law such as this will only exacerbate such a fear. That's another big reason why I think it's garbage.

Then, there is the issue of blended families...that is, one child is illegal and another is not, simply by virtue of where they were born. Yes, it's the parent's fault... but who pays? The children.

These are not insoluble problems. One need only provide a visa category for those in that situation. We need not take an all or nothing approach.

If the United States can afford to give tax cuts to the rich, and pay the exorbinant amount of money it pays into defense spending, it can afford to pay for these illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants, I might add, that cook, clean, garden, and harvest the food for those same rich people.

Why "pay for them?" Nobody pays for me. Can I get my stuff paid for, please? Why not?

Look - we don't have to "pay" for them. We need to decide who should stay and who should go. Clearly, we're all in agreement that long-time resident children with no connection to a foreign country ought to receive some sort of consideration immigration-wise. All that needs to be done is the Congress just needs to write a law giving them an opportunity to get a new category of visa, call it a Z visa. And, if they are in the grouping we're talking about, then legalize them, work permit them, and then let them proceed on to permanent residence in due course.

Why does the identification of some truly sympathetic cases mean the average dickface who flies into the US as a visitor and then just stays, and then make $80,000 a year tax-free cleaning houses - why should that guy be "paid for?"

That's one thing you're missing here, Mai. You seem to have this mistaken impression that illegal immigrants are cowering, hunted, shivering husks that are being set upon at every turn. That is not the case. I know these cleaning people for the "rich people" -- you know how much they make? Easily -- EASILY - $50,000 a year, most of it cash. I know an illegal alien husband and wife who cleared $80,000 last year - cleaning houses.

And, it also burns my ass when people assume that the people who clook, clean, garden, etc. for the "rich people" are illegal aliens. The VAST MAJORITY - the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people who clean, garden, etc. are either American citizens, or legal immigrants. These jobs are not the sole province of the illegal immigrant. And, they aren't doing anybody a favor by doing these jobs - they get paid good money for it. Fucking cleaning people are charging about $100 to do a normal sized house around here - small apartment or townhome maybe $75 (paid in cash) - and a 1500+ sq. foot house is more like $100, and bigger houses even more. They can do 5-10 houses in a day - and they are generally speaking very industrious, hardworking people - to be admired - and they hustle.

You think they're poor? Fuck that - they aren't, by and large. Some are, of course. But, most of them work their tails off and make money. And, then for a good number of them, it's off the books money, and they can live in Section 8 housing, and apply for food stamps (that's what they shouldn't be allowed to do).

I just had a conversation about this with She Who Must Be Obeyed last night. She is, as I've mentioned, a legal immigrant -- now a US citizen - and she is INCENSED at the illegals who game the system. Cry her a river, I tell you. If you think I'm not being sympathetic enough to illegal aliens - you should see her, and most other legal immigrants we know - they'd pack up the illegals and send them home. They're like, "I did it the right way - I obeyed the law -- I love this country - why shouldn't they?"

And, I know I get labeled as anti-immigrant on this, but it's far from it. I've been to many - more than I can count - citizenship ceremonies for friends and families. I love going, because I see real patriotism there. I real love of country there. Those becoming citizens CRY - burst into tears - when they become citizens - they invite family and friends to come and watch the ceremony as they take their oath because of the immense pride and catharsis they feel at having made it. They hug, they cry, they celebrate. They LOVE the United States. I love immigrants. My parents are immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. Illegal immigrants essentially are a slip, if not a spit, in the face of every one of them who did the right thing.

[kiki5711]

Back in the 70s I was offered 10G to marry a Filipino girl, just to get her in the country (when I found out I wasn't allowed to consummate the relationship I backed out).

I know two guys and one girl ,one a friend from Shri Lanka another a coworker from Kazakstan and another coworker from Russia, that married just to get legal here and only paid about $2,000. Stayed married for about 2 yrs, took plenty pics together to make it look like they were really a married couple then went through the process of divorce. But at least they are now legal, all of them became citizens of US and are working, have health care insurance and are both going to school to better themselves.

So, even this is an illegal way, it's much more preferable to me than just living undercover for years and years hoping not to get caught.

[Coito ergo sum]

Laklak, I'm a citizen, I reserve the right to bash my own country, thank you very much.

Besides, I'm not bashing my country...I'm bashing this act that will be going on the ballot this November if it gets enough signatures...which I fear it will.

I better mobilize and go find out what I can do to help defeat it.

If only legal immigrants with green cards could vote. They'd get that bill passed lickety-split!

[Coito ergo sum]

Fair enough, but how much more do you think the US needs to do to be doing its "fair share?"

1 in 5 of all the world's immigrants, immigrates to the US. 12.5% of the American population, right now, was born in some other country. Name me one country that comes close to that.

Quite a few are close to that, many are more. The in the UK there is a 11.3% foreign-born population. Spain 14.0%, Canada 18.76%. But the Vatican City wins this one, with 100% immigrant population.

The US has 4.5% of the world's population and assimilates 20% of the world's immigrants. That is more than 4 times its proportion to the total world population.

The US is a huge country with vast areas of fertile land, and its relatively small population consumes about 20% of the earth's resources. That is more than 4 times its proportion to the total world population. So I'd say the US is doing just about it's fair share in terms of immigration, but it's nothing special.

We have been the largest recipient of immigrants for at least 150 years. By far. Nobody comes close. And, nobody has come close.

If the US is, as you say, doing it's fair share, then that ought to be enough. I think we're doing more than our fair share, but fair share is enough.

[Coito ergo sum]

I still haven't seen a rational, reasonable explanation of why this is such a horrible thing. It doesn't change any immigration laws, those are on a Federal level. It doesn't establish any sort of Gestapo-like police agency, or take away anyone's Constitutional rights or protections, it doesn't put illegal immigrants in any more jeopardy than they already are. So what is it that is so objectionable?

Mai, do you honestly think that U.S. taxpayers should have to pay for medical, educational and living expenses for people in the country illegally? How can you justify that? I have no problem if you want to contribute your money to that cause, I'm sure there are plenty of private charities already in existence that help illegals, but what gives you (or anyone else) the right to tell other people they have to pay for it? Hell, we aren't taking care of our own citizens, we don't have the spare cash lying around to take care of a few million illegals.

I'd love to see open borders and the free movement of people and capital across them. Hell, it's a part of the Libertarian Party platform. But it's unworkable unless it's reciprocal. I have no problem with Mexicans coming here and working, as long as I have a right to move to Mexico. Beer and property are cheaper there, I could live one hell of a lot better down there than I do in Florida.

Why should I have to pay for schools? I don't have any children. Why should I have to pay for the resources that will be used to enforce this law?

You have a say in whether and how much you pay for those things. It's representative government.

Paying for schools for people to attend in the US is one thing. Paying for an illegal alien, who is under the jurisdiction of a foreign country, and able receive benefits from that foreign country, is quite another. Isn't it?

You think taking someone into police custody and turning them over to a federal agency, who in turn has to process the extradition, paperwork, and go through the necessary legal channels to oust these people, who many of will probably be held for unnecessary lengths of time isn't going to cost?

The turning over bit only applies IF there is an immigration detainer issued by the federal government. That's analogous to a warrant and the federal law already says that law enforcement agencies have to turn over such immigrants. California is just providing a state mandate that law enforcement agency adhere to the flippin' law rather than just let the damn people go.

I have a friend who works with illegal immigrants held in detention - she shared some pretty awful statistics with me about what goes on there, it's no less civilized or humane than how we treat the prisoners of Guantanamo. Let me get back to you with those stats.

Please do, because that's bullshit right there. Guantanamo? Ridiculous.

But if that is the way you think Obama is treating immigrant detainees, then your issue is with Obama. The head of the DHS reports directly to Obama, and if they're treating deportees like Guantanamo detainees, then that says a lot about how this Administration runs its immigration enforcement arm.

Also, just because it's worse in some other countries still doesn't make it right...I think I should hold the US to the best standards of humane and dignified treatment, not the worst ones.

We have among the best standards of human and dignified treatment. We have a very weak and weakly enforced immigration law. People can get arrested serve time in jail, and even though they are illegal, they get let back out into the populace because the local law enforcement authorities can't hold them, and the federal immigration department won't take them, even if they're identified.

To suggest that somehow the US is among the worst in its treatment of aliens, including illegal aliens, is fucking nonsense of the highest order.

[laklak]

I just had a conversation about this with She Who Must Be Obeyed last night. She is, as I've mentioned, a legal immigrant -- now a US citizen - and she is INCENSED at the illegals who game the system. Cry her a river, I tell you. If you think I'm not being sympathetic enough to illegal aliens - you should see her, and most other legal immigrants we know - they'd pack up the illegals and send them home. They're like, "I did it the right way - I obeyed the law -- I love this country - why shouldn't they?"

This is exactly Mrs. Lak's attitude. I felt the same way when I lived in the UK. I jumped through many a bureaucratic hoop to get my residence, and I resented the illegals gaming the system. I was never a permanent resident, it was always a work-related residency. "Not eligible for public benefits" was stamped into my passport. I didn't have a national health ID, if I got sick I paid the doctor or dentist cash money. I didn't get job seekers allowance, or council benefits. I did, however, pay UK income tax. Why is that any more "fair" than what they're advocating in California? It annoyed the shit out of me that someone could wander in claiming political asylum and be given a council flat, money and free health care, while I - who was working and contributing to the economy - paid for everything. I didn't see anyone protesting to grant me benefits.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sucks to be a criminal. But I agree, holding illegals in detention is a bad idea. It's costly and inefficient. The best thing to do is to change the law to disallow any appeals at all by an illegal while they are still in the country. Hook 'em, book 'em, and kick 'em out, all within a few hours or days at most.

Gotta say no to that. There must be a system, including appeals, to handle these cases, otherwise we have federal cops having the power to oust people by fiat. If there is no system and where kicking them out in hours -- without a hearing - then the cops just need to make an accusation, and then you're out of the country. How would a US citizen be heard to ensure that the ICE officer who has a grudge against him doesn't declare him an illegal alien and kick him out?

Then spend the money we spend on detaining them and giving them "due process" on securing the border with our military, lots of concrete and barbed wire, and some land-mines for good measure.

Oh, and the difference between that and the Berlin wall is that the Berlin wall was built to keep people IN, our border security is built to keep people who have no right to be here OUT.

Not necessary. An efficient system of identification is all that is needed.

[Coito ergo sum]

I just had a conversation about this with She Who Must Be Obeyed last night. She is, as I've mentioned, a legal immigrant -- now a US citizen - and she is INCENSED at the illegals who game the system. Cry her a river, I tell you. If you think I'm not being sympathetic enough to illegal aliens - you should see her, and most other legal immigrants we know - they'd pack up the illegals and send them home. They're like, "I did it the right way - I obeyed the law -- I love this country - why shouldn't they?"

This is exactly Mrs. Lak's attitude. I felt the same way when I lived in the UK. I jumped through many a bureaucratic hoop to get my residence, and I resented the illegals gaming the system. I was never a permanent resident, it was always a work-related residency. "Not eligible for public benefits" was stamped into my passport. I didn't have a national health ID, if I got sick I paid the doctor or dentist cash money. I didn't get job seekers allowance, or council benefits. I did, however, pay UK income tax. Why is that any more "fair" than what they're advocating in California? It annoyed the shit out of me that someone could wander in claiming political asylum and be given a council flat, money and free health care, while I - who was working and contributing to the economy - paid for everything. I didn't see anyone protesting to grant me benefits.

That's typical in some folks view of this issue. The US doesn't even go as far as the UK, and yet the US is the one going too far.

Arizona is enacting a law which exists in every other industrialized country, including Canada, UK, France, Germany -- all the big "enlightened" countries -- cops can verify citizenship of people they arrest. That's it. Every other country in the world, just about, does that. Arizona - racist.

California wants to deny public benefits to the flood of illegals, which is what the UK has always done, apparently - heck - you were LEGAL and they were denying you benefits. No peeps about the UK, but California is doing something wrong.

[Bella Fortuna]

It isn't easy to get in on a work visa. Mrs. Lak is an occupational therapist, which is a profession in short supply, so she qualified for an H1B1 work visa. ....

I do H1B visas and assist with the employer's portion of helping immigrant faculty get green cards - it ain't easy, it's true!

The worst part for me, as a cog in the process, is the absolute opacity and unaccountability of the feds. They refuse to provide information or even ways of contacting them - and if you do miraculously get hold of someone, you get a number (!) not a name for who's "helping" you. I've had some diabolical experiences with them that turn into nightmares for the individuals - and naturally I, being the face of it all to them, get blamed.