Posted on 03/26/2002 6:34:05 AM PST by Sir Gawain
I thought the idea was to get the illegals out of the country?Illegal immigrant: "Your Honor. I no have no $1000!
Judge: "To the jailhouse with you!"
Geez Saber! Not a very good idea!
Yo quiero Taco Bell!
Classic.
Maybe his Texas district has a lot of MexicanAmerican voters?
When a visa applicant applies in his home country, the State Department does what is called a country background check. In this check they look for criminal violations in the aliens home country.
And how many of those eligible for 245(i) were already visa holders? What you choose to ignore in this legislation speaks either to a lack of understanding or purposeful obfuscation. It is clear you have an agenda here, and it is not to get to the truth.
So now 245(i) get passed and 100 Mexicans apply and get approved, well those 100 Mexicans now get 100 of the year one visa's, and 100 of the original applicants in Mexico get bumped back to year two,
Where in 245(i) does it say that overall eligibility numbers would be subtracted from whoever eligible under this extension applies?
Also, since I'm school trained in Immigration Law, and have 4 1/2 years on the job training, I do think I know more about 245(i) then you will ever know.
Perhaps. But then again, you do not know who I am, do you?
None. Read the law.
H.R. 1885, only extends the eligibility period, not the class of applicants. Under 245(i) the applicant must have entered the country without inspection (i.e. they entered illegally).
What you choose to ignore in this legislation speaks either to a lack of understanding or purposeful obfuscation. It is clear you have an agenda here, and it is not to get to the truth.
Sorry, the lack of understanding is yours, and the only agenda I have is that I don't like criminals.
Where in 245(i) does it say that overall eligibility numbers would be subtracted from whoever eligible under this extension applies?
Once again your lack of immigration rules and regulations are showing. The visa's have to come from somewhere, they don't just appear out of thin air.
Since Congress is the only body of government the can decide the number of visa's available, and this bill does not increase the number of visa's available, where do you think the visa's come from.
Perhaps. But then again, you do not know who I am, do you?
Your right, I don't know who you are, but anyone can tell you have very little knowledge, when it comes to immigration law, so if that's your field of work, it's time for you to look for a new job.
Under 245(i) the applicant must have entered the country without inspection (i.e. they entered illegally).
Here is 245(i) in its entirety as passed by the house. You show me where the extension mentions what you claim:
HR 1885 PCS
Received
Read the first time
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
To expand the class of beneficiaries who may apply for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by extending the deadline for classification petition and labor certification filings, and for other purposes.
Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2001.
Attest:
JEFF TRANDAHL,
Clerk.
Calendar No. 73
----------------------------------
You assert that none of the applicants held valid visas to the United States. Do you really mean to say this? Do you stand by this assertion?
That is not 245(i) in its entirety. That is the section of 245(i) that is being changed, by this bill. Go read the law, not the bill. The bill only changes parts of the law, not all of it.
You assert that none of the applicants held valid visas to the United States. Do you really mean to say this? Do you stand by this assertion?
Yes. One does not obtain a visa, and then sneak into the country. Read the law, not the bill.
That is not 245(i) in its entirety. That is the section of 245(i) that is being changed, by this bill. Go read the law, not the bill. The bill only changes parts of the law, not all of it.
You assert that none of the applicants held valid visas to the United States. Do you really mean to say this? Do you stand by this assertion?
Yes. One does not obtain a visa, and then sneak into the country. Read the law, not the bill.
Yes. One does not obtain a visa, and then sneak into the country. Read the law, not the bill.
I have read the bill. I specifically referred to the extension.
Nowhere in the bill, if you wish to go back to that, does it mention that this provision only applies to those who have snuck into the country. Sorry, but it simply is not there. Many who will be covered under this provision are those whose visas expired -- for whatever reason, including the long wait for INS processing of their permanent residency applications -- and who wish to normalize their status in the United States. Say what you will, but the above is a fact.
The bill only amends a section of the law. The section that has to do with the time period for applications, it does not change the entire law.
If you knew anything about law, you could grasp this. Do an internet search for the INA (immigration and nationality act), and read section 245. Not just the part out dates. READ THE LAW.
bump
Looks like every single candidate has an abysmal record on immigration...
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/11556
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.