Why Ron Paul Voted For the Amnesty Bill

Sierra Times ^

[jackbill]

Once this "amnesty" is allowed, how many of these "new Americans" will be eligible to bring dozens of family members in on the basis of "family reunification"???

[quimby]

Yeah, right. bob byrd is your hero and ron paul is wrong. Only a BYRD BRAIN would make such a statement. And only a child posts pictures on every single post. But then, you are trying to appeal to childish thinkers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Fine and deport."

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!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Once they reach permanent residence (I think that takes seven years), they can apply to sponsor their spouse and children only. As citizens (another seven years I believe) they can additionally claim siblings and parents.

[PRND21]

I hesitate to even attempt to explain the twistedness of what you have just written.

Classic.

[grania]

Gosh, I didn't know that Ron Paul was for undermining our soverignty and opening the borders! It must be oil money buying him off. You think?

Maybe his Texas district has a lot of MexicanAmerican voters?

[Zviadist]

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?

[Marine Inspector]

And how many of those eligible for 245(i) were already visa holders?

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.

[Zviadist]

Just an observation: for one who claims to be an attorney, your grasp of basic English grammar is deeply distressing.

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

Calendar No. 73

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1885

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 22, 2001

Received

June 7, 2001

Read the first time

June 8, 2001

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

---

AN ACT

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

Section 245(i)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking `2001;' and inserting `2001, or during the 120-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001;'; and

(2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:

`(C) who, in the case of a beneficiary of a petition for classification, or an application for labor certification, described in subparagraph (B) that was filed after January 14, 1998--

`(i) was physically present in the United States on December 21, 2000; and

`(ii) demonstrates that the familial or employment relationship that is the basis of such petition for classification or application for labor certification existed on or before April 30, 2001;'.

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?

[Marine Inspector]

Here is 245(i) in its entirety as passed by the house. You show me where the extension mentions what you claim:

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.

[Marine Inspector]

Here is 245(i) in its entirety as passed by the house. You show me where the extension mentions what you claim:

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.

[Marine Inspector]

Sorry for the double post.

[Zviadist]

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.

[Marine Inspector]

You just don't get it. Go read the law, not the bill.

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.

[Mozilla]

bump

[CowHampshire]

Looks like every single candidate has an abysmal record on immigration...

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/11556