Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week - Page 5

I know you come here once every year and make a few self righteous posts and get outraged at the rhetoric but save your outrage for something else. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Someone marrying a citizen and getting a papers is following the law. Philosophically it may be something to think about about how fair it is to be a mail order bride but it's the law. Someone willingly breaking the law and coming here as an adult and then having kids here that the locals end up paying for (delivery, chip, etc.) for the sole purpose of getting a foothold in the country is exactly what the term anchor baby refers to.

The same people who had those kids then say "don't deport me! My kid is American!" as if they are more deserving than the other adults who willingly came here without documents or overstayed their visas, etc. Sure the kid is a citizen, but it's a citizen whose parents use as an anchor. I'm just pointing out that if this EO happens in this way, it looks like their plan to use their kids as anchors worked. Not judging, but it is what it is (or some other cliche).

So do we expect you to return to the forum this time next year? It looks like you've gone over your annual quota.

Obama has the potential here to f**k it all up for so many people if his EO does not cover them. Looks like this is the end of the road. There will never be a CIR coming out of this Republican Congress especially after this.

That's a glass half empty sort of thinking. He has to face many realities - namely dealing with a rabid Republican Senate and House. So far, he has done more for immigration reform than anybody including Reagan. Look at your own signature.

I just realized that this story was originally realized by fox news, they are known to make up things to hurt the democrats and the POTUS, it's really hard to to Trust FOX News, but I really hope we know by next week what's going to happen with EO

Probably not. Original DACA allowed "brief, casual, and innocent travels" before applying. Brief, casual, and innocent meaning:
Under 3 months long.
Not due to deportation.
Not undertaken to commit a crime.

Also, since your last entry to US was procedurally normal you can try to argue that you were admitted/paroled back into US. However you'd need evidence of being on that bus that crossed the border and you didn't make false claim of citizenship, rather someone just assumed you were one, shrugged it off and waved you in.

Look at the "Matter of Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010)" where the Board of Immigration appeals found that: "an alien seeking adjustment of status has satisfied the definition of “admitted” at INA § 101(a)(13)(A) merely by demonstrating that the alien presented himself or herself for inspection, did not make a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and was permitted to enter the United States. In Quilantan, the alien entering the United States was a passenger in a car traveling across the U.S.-Mexico border. She did not have any valid entry documents. At the border, the inspector asked the driver a few questions but did not ask the alien passenger any questions. The car was waived through. The Board found this entry to be an “admission” for purposes of adjustment of status because even though the alien did not actually have authorization to enter, her entry was “procedurally regular,” and therefore lawful and valid. "
http://www.rreeves.com/publications_...php?newsId=656

Thank you! I was livid when i read the post that you replied to with this, and i was going to reply myself, but you basically covered it all!

I don't give a single fuck if i get heat for saying this, but from a logical stand point i actually believe that undocumented parents of U.S. citizens should be the LAST in line, based on the judgement you're describing.

If anyone is having problems grasping onto this concept, then here's another way to look at it:

If you are a DACA beneficiary for example, then yes, it makes perfect sense for you to not be deported because you didn't make the choice to come here. On the other hand, undocumented parents of U.S. citizens did make that choice, and now suddenly they are more deserving than someone who came here under the same circumstances though decided not to have children?

People need to look at these things from all angles, not just their own.

Lol OK Fl_dreamer

First, I did say that CIR was preferable to any EO as it would cover the most people. However, someone or some group will always be left out because they do not meet the requirements.

Second, whether you two or anyone else on this forum realizes this, USC's have priority and should have priority because that is in the constitution. Now I know that's a controversial statement (for what reasons, I don't understand, since we are in the United States), but at least there is some rationale behind it.

Third, I believe as someone commented that there were more parents of USC children that would be covered than parents of DACA recipients. Therefore, if the President's options are limited, wouldn't he choose the option that would yield the greatest benefits and be easier to defend to the critics of his policies.

Fourth, I don't care how self-righteous I appear, by using terms like "anchor baby" we are only validating the anti-immigration rhetoric that is used to demonize people in our situation. I'll be damned if anyone calls my nieces and nephews or my own child an anchor baby, because that's not what they are. By using the rhetoric of the xenophobes, it only moves the debate right, which is 80% of the problem with immigration reform.

Lastly, as someone whose parents could potentially be left out of this EO because they don't have a USC child, I am upset, but I also realize that the President cannot just wave a magic wand and provide blanketed relief to everyone, as much as we all want and need him to.

P.S.--Sorry I don't comment on every single thread and rack up 1,000's of posts. I strongly believe that my posts should have some meaning or try to assist in some way. I don't just speak to hear my empty head rattle like others in this forum. Frankly, I also get sick of how many people in this forum are so inclined to judge other people in the very same situation as they find themselves in and sometimes I have to take a break from it. Sorry.

1. Yes, i agree that no matter what the EO is, some people will be left out no matter what. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the approach from a logical stand point and more precisely how you get to define certain points.

2. I am disputing how that priority is achieved, which is something you are overlooking. Yes, as a child born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, you become a U.S. citizen and that's not your fault. That child should be entitled to all of the rights as a citizen, but the parents should be held to different standards. How can you not see this? Your perception of this logic is to make me look like i don't give a shit about anyone's parents, which is not true. If a well-thought-out plan is put together to determine who gets deportation relief and it leaves me out, then i'm fine with that. I'm the complete opposite of selfish. Unlike most people pressing Obama for deportation relief that would benefit only them and their families, i'm actually all for any kind of executive action that will help this country as a whole, especially its own citizens born to american citizens. And i'll be happy to debate over this with anyone.

3. Yield the greatest benefits to who? Again, don't just look at things from your own angle, and decisions that will only impact you and your loved ones. You're talking about impacting the whole country.

4. It doesn't matter how you slice it. If you're going to use it to your advantage when it comes to adjusting your status, it's an anchor baby. Otherwise, show us it's not an anchor baby and adjust your status by different means. I mean, if we're cutting all the BS.

5. And yes, i know that the president can't just wave a magic wand, 'cause i'm not an idiot. I am simply disputing how priority is or i believe should be determined. It's perfectly fine to have a different opinion, but if you're going to have a different opinion, at least make a valid argument.

So far, no one has provided an opinion on why they think an undocumented parent of a U.S. citizen is more deserving than an undocumented person that came to the U.S. under the same circumstances though decided not to have children; other than saying they are more deserving simply because they have a child who is a U.S. citizen, which is precisely the definition of an anchor baby. That's the point i'm trying to get across.

I welcome anyone who wants to debate with me if or why they think i'm being selfish, rather than looking at this from a logical and reasonable standpoint. Which is what everyone should be doing, if they aren't.

Well, this is the only time you came to the forum this year so it's a little less than commenting on every thing. Just seems like you come here when you're angry. We were joking about this last year when there was not a lot of immigration news and all the people who showed up out of the blue after DACA disappeared and now that the news is more active, they're showing up again. But anyway, that was a little joke.

And no, we're not all in the same situation. I am a Dreamer and the label matters because by definition, I was brought here when I was a child and so I do feel more entitled to get legal relief than an adult who made the choice to come here. This isn't the "open borders for all! Forum". The judging you refer to is mostly when a fellow dreamer comes and says they had a dwi, burglarized a house, got caught with drugs, etc. and I'm ok with judging those people.

I'm not going to comment on whose parents deserve to get relief and whose don't because my parents are out of the woods (though it took 23 years and a lot of pain) but if I were going to pick, either it would be a straight seniority system (10 years plus) or nobody would get it. The whole anchor baby preference is upsetting.