Why is this not a fair immigration legilative proposal?

Why is this not a fair immigration legilative proposal? Topic: Making a business proposal
July 18, 2019 / By Adlai
Question: All current illegal residents of the US, who comply the following conditions, to be granted citizenship now. 1) Satisfy all the usual administrative and background checks usually required for immigration. 2) Each such immigrant must show proof that they are self supporting ( i e unsubsidized earning greater than the US poverty level income or in a family where the unsubsidized family income is above the poverty level income for that family size) 3) Be prohibited by law from receiving any type of government subsistence or support or benefits for a period of 7 years. 4)REVOKE THEIR CITIZENSHIP IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.. 5) All future immigrations must be via the usual immigration procedures. 6)The annual legally allowed immigration quotas in existence today to be adhered to in the future ( i e 0.6 million /yr). 7) In order to be a citizen as a result of being born in the US, the mother must be an american citizen. 8) Rigorously enforce the existing laws which make it illegal for business to employ illegal residents. Anonymous Americans do not have dual citizenship. Why should immigrants expect to be granted greater privileges than americans. Many immigrants work here and reap the benefits of our economy and then return to their native country taking much of their accumulated wealth and accumulated benefits with them ( which hurts our economy just the same as businesses who transfer their assets and manufacturing out of the US.).. If a potential immigrant is not willing to renounce their homeland citizenship, it clearly indicates that they do not intend to give their full allegiance to america. We do not need such immigrants. For immigrants who intend to become americans for life ( i e real americans), it should not matter to them if they revoke their homeland citizenship so they only have an american citizenship ( the same as almost all americans). Then it is clear that they intend to fully integrate into and support our american way of life. Otherwise they should stay in their own country. Poor people are not prohibited from immigrating under the proposal, HOWEVER, they would be required to fully support themselves once here without government subsistance type support . If their earning capability is below the poverty income level then they would have to be partially supported by the american taxpayers. We do not need more people who can't support themselves, we already have enough of them. 7) should be changed to read " --- either the mother or the father ---" Anonomous. Under the above proposal, you would not be an american citizen as a result of being born in the us because neither your mother or your father were citizens.Thats the intent of the proposal. However, when your mother became a citizen,she could have applied to have you also become a citizen as an immediate family member since the US allows for this situation outside of the annual legal quota limitation.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why is this not a fair immigration legilative proposal?

Stephenie Stephenie | 9 days ago
I mostly agree with you except on a few points 4. "must revoke foreign citizenship" - why? legal immigrants to the us are considered dual citizens of both their other country and the us, so legalized illegals should keep their old citizenship in my opinion. they have no reason to show any extra loyalty to the us by revoking it. it wouldn't be fair. 6. keeping the same quota? part of the reason the decent illegal immigrants do what they did was be cause of too tough quotas. I say bring them in inn larger numbers and reduce the fees. and I have a slight reservation about the ban on poor people because most immigrants are fairly poor 7. to have to have an American mother complicates things. as my mother was from Peru and immigrated here, my oldest brother was born to her while she was only a permanent resident. that would make it that he wasn't an American citizen by birth. please, leave the birthright citizenship alone
👍 146 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Why is this not a fair immigration legilative proposal? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Making a business proposal

Stephenie Originally Answered: For those that think the Arizona immigration law is WRONG, how do you feel about Dem's National ID proposal?
I oppose both the Arizona immigration law and national ID proposal. ryoshi is right. From the proposal: "Possession of a fraud-proof social security card will only serve as evidence of lawful work-authorization but will in no way be permitted to serve—or shall be required to be shown—as proof of citizenship or lawful immigration status. It will be unlawful for any person, corporation; organization local, state, or federal law enforcement officer; local or state government; or any other entity to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes." That being said, I still oppose the idea. The government has no business saying who is and who isn't allowed to work in the country.
Stephenie Originally Answered: For those that think the Arizona immigration law is WRONG, how do you feel about Dem's National ID proposal?
Two problems with your argument. Despite all the verbiage, there is a difference between an ID card and requiring a segment of the population that "looks illegal" to carry proof of citizenship. Under the Arizona law if there is "reasonable suspicion" that someone is "illegal" they are required to provide proof of their legal status. This card would not do that and would still subject a person to providing a green card, passport or a birth certificate (and we know how many Republicans reacted to Obama's birth certificate) and would be detained until they could provide it...which may take weeks or months. Secondly, you seem to be under the misapprehension that somehow Democrats do not want to secure the border. That, of course is not true. We just want to do it as humanely and constitutionally as possible. EDIT: The solution is very obvious. "illegals" are here for jobs. Jobs that are ILLEGALLY supplied by employers who know that they can hire an "illegal" for sub-minimum wage and with sub-standard working conditions because an illegal has nowhere to turn to for legal help. The quick solution is to start enforcing existing laws and arresting and imposing more than just fines, but imprisonment for employers that willfully disobey the law. Everyone is now required to provide proof of legal status when being hired. That is where the system breaks down. Employers that know the fine they will get will be less than the labor saving by hiring undocumented aliens.
Stephenie Originally Answered: For those that think the Arizona immigration law is WRONG, how do you feel about Dem's National ID proposal?
Let’s see, would I rather carry an ID card or get stopped by the police because I may be having a bad hair day and look to them like someone here illegally………. I’ll take the ID card for $100 Pat!

Quianna Quianna
USA has no right to be allowing any citizenship grants in this country now and in the past, because they're are far,far too many people in the available workforce category about 240 million out of the now 316.5 million citizen total and the country doesn't have 120 million payroll jobs of any type full or part-time. So the real immigration reform should be NO more citizenship grants for decades to come, and kick-out the illegals here now. P.S. it's the Capitalist Business Community who own the media & pundits promoting how much we need immigration and with NO regard to the already over supply of more than 100 million current citizens in the available workforce with no job opportunities or possible prospect of having an income now. The sad part is so many people are unaware of how high the poverty levels are in USA cause they swallow the superficial useless mind control hogwash coming across main stream media or TV. Root cause & blame is USA is a Republic "meaning we have representative govt" & no matter what named party or who gets into office they get paid-off bribed by the Capitalist business community the combination is a Kleptocracy, that needs outlawing & replacement with true real Citizen Democracy.
👍 50 | 👎 1

Quianna Originally Answered: Is The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a good source?
NO! Like many other anti-immigrant groups, FAIR opposes legal immigration as well as illegal immigration. Unlike many other anti-immigrant groups, however, FAIR is much more explicit about this opposition. FAIR is more nuanced in its use of language than other anti-immigrant groups and it has been used as a resource by officials, the media and within anti-immigration policy circles. However, a close look reveals a pattern of extremist affiliations and a strategy of founding and empowering smaller groups that promote xenophobia. History of extremist ties Controversy over FAIR’s extremist ties dates back to its founder, John Tanton, a pioneer of the anti-immigrant movement. In 1997, he told the Detroit Free Press that if the borders are not secured, America will be overrun by people “defecating and creating garbage and looking for jobs.” http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/fair.asp
Quianna Originally Answered: Is The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a good source?
Well yes and no, I wouldn't recommend using them as an unbiased source, but instead use them to exemplify a particular angle. FAIR is largely representing those who are flat out against moderate immigration reform. They largely want to take a tougher stance on the issue. I recommend looking for information on the public and international outlets, such as NPR, PBS, and something based in the UK or Canada like the BBC.

If you have your own answer to the question making a business proposal, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.