# US govt launches legal challenge to Arizona’s controversial new visa law



## Editor (Aug 20, 2009)

The US government has launched a legal challenge to Arizona’s controversial new immigration law which allows police to challenge anyone they suspect does not have a valid visa and is due to take effect later this month.Immigration interest groups at both ends of the spectrum are gearing up for what promises to be a hard [...]

Click to read the full news article: US govt launches legal challenge to Arizona’s controversial new visa law...
Please come back to discuss the story here in this thread.


----------



## Jynxgirl (Nov 27, 2009)

How do other countries deal with illegals? If its discirimination that is the concern, then we need to change that to asking EVERYONE about their status. Drivers license need to include the legal status on it, otherwise everyone needs to get a passport. Countries in the EU have to have a passport right? Something has change. 

Hope the next hot button topic for elections is anchor babies.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

Anchor babies are something of a myth in the US - although children born in the US automatically get US citizenship, they can't sponsor their parents for legal admission until they turn 18. It's kind of a long-term planning thing that I strongly suspect isn't all that much of a threat.

But other countries have a national i.d. card that is normally required for things like signing up for benefits and other day-to-day identification purposes. Legal immigrants have some sort of residence permit that is similar to the national i.d. card but indicates effective dates and restrictions (like work privileges or no, limitations on the right to work, etc.).

But Americans seem to feel that a national i.d. card is an imposition - as do the Brits, too. 

A national i.d. card won't prevent illegals, but it does make it more difficult for people to take jobs or get benefits they aren't entitled to. Though stricter regulation of the labor markets in the US would help, too, and no one over there seems too thrilled about that option, either.
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## Davis1 (Feb 20, 2009)

Bevdeforges said:


> Anchor babies are something of a myth in the US - although children born in the US automatically get US citizenship, they can't sponsor their parents for legal admission until they turn 18.


or 21 even


----------



## BritishGav (Jan 26, 2010)

I quite liked the idea of this legislation originally, but once you read into it a bit it does seem to be a bit over the top. When is the president actually going to be adding some meat to the talk of imigration reform that he's been talking about for what seems like forever?


----------



## Fatbrit (May 8, 2008)

BritishGav said:


> I quite liked the idea of this legislation originally, but once you read into it a bit it does seem to be a bit over the top. When is the president actually going to be adding some meat to the talk of imigration reform that he's been talking about for what seems like forever?


There's a large lobby who likes things just the way they are -- the corporations!


----------



## Jynxgirl (Nov 27, 2009)

Myth...  Tell that to a few of my work and friend 'acquaintances' who specifically came over the border at the right time. 

I worked in a call center environment where spanish speakers who didnt have to be english/spanish speakers were employed. Large portion of people were mexican, almost all had kids. Did we really issue all those people green cards to work without them having american citizen children as part of the overall equation?

Know a company who hired someone who was 'legal' on paper (stolen ssn). He was illegal. They didnt know for like five years. He is my brothers 'helper' mechanic. Once the company found out, he already had two kids (this was last year) and they helped him get his green card I do believe largely based on children and the time in country. He and his wife have green cards and are legal now. 

I also have met a very high society emirati who has 3 american citizen kids specifically so they will have education opportunities. His words, not mine. Would have rathered they had uk opportunities but... he settled for usa. Again nice guy, and how can I fault him for abusing the loop hole that we have left open??? 

I read the bill as have a large portion of hispanic friends (who in Texas doesnt??) who are up in arms about this. I am sorry that they feel it will target them and in reality it might. But if we blanketly required everyone to start carrying some sort of identification then it wouldnt be a target. I guess time for everyone to get a little inconvenienced.


----------



## Davis1 (Feb 20, 2009)

Jynxgirl said:


> Know a company who hired someone who was 'legal' on paper (stolen ssn). He was illegal. They didnt know for like five years. He is my brothers 'helper' mechanic. Once the company found out, he already had two kids (this was last year) and they helped him get his green card I do believe largely based on children and the time in country. He and his wife have green cards and are legal now. .


nice story ... but it did not happen... 
Illegals can never adjust status in the US ...


----------



## etril (May 26, 2010)

Davis1 said:


> nice story ... but it did not happen...
> Illegals can never adjust status in the US ...


It's hard to say never. There is such a thing as "Cancellation of Removal & Adjustment of Status" for people who have been living illegally in the states for a long time. If they convince a judge that their removal would be an extreme hardship on their citizen kids, then it's possible. Not easy, but technically possible. Maybe that's what happened to Jynxgirl's aquaintances.

Anyways, I agree with the national id / extended drivers license ideas. Immigration enforcement should routinely include (inconvenience?) citizens as well as noncitizens, otherwise you have officers making judgement calls about who is who based on a person's external characteristics... and that's problematic.


----------



## Davis1 (Feb 20, 2009)

etril said:


> It's hard to say never. There is such a thing as "Cancellation of Removal & Adjustment of Status" for people who have been living illegally in the states for a long time. If they convince a judge that their removal would be an extreme hardship on their citizen kids, .


NO ..for that its the Attorney General and one has to be a US citizen 
stated not


----------



## etril (May 26, 2010)

Davis1 said:


> NO ..for that its the Attorney General and one has to be a US citizen
> stated not


I don't quite understand what you mean, Davis1, but here is the law:

"To be eligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), Respondent must establish that s/he (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (3) has not been convicted of an offense under section § 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3) of the Act; and (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence. See INA § 240A(b)(1)"

http://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoirforms/eoir42b.pdf
EOIR - IJ Benchbook - Templates - Cancellation - 240A(b)(1) Standard Language


----------



## Davis1 (Feb 20, 2009)

etril said:


> I don't quite understand what you mean, Davis1, but here is the law:
> 
> "To be eligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), Respondent must establish that s/he (1) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (2) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (3) has not been convicted of an offense under section § 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3) of the Act; and (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence. See INA § 240A(b)(1)"
> 
> ...


if you re-read the fable ... neither party was a US citizen ....


(He and his wife have green cards and are legal now.)


----------



## etril (May 26, 2010)

Davis1 said:


> if you re-read the fable ... neither party was a US citizen ....
> (He and his wife have green cards and are legal now.)


The children were citizens. They are the ones who would presumably be subjected to extreme hardship if their parents (not citizens) were deported.


----------



## Davis1 (Feb 20, 2009)

etril said:


> The children were citizens. They are the ones who would presumably be subjected to extreme hardship if their parents (not citizens) were deported.


if you believe it happened ..you go ahead ... I don't ...


----------



## Jynxgirl (Nov 27, 2009)

Davis1 said:


> nice story ... but it did not happen...
> Illegals can never adjust status in the US ...


 Your telling me my brothers personal friend as well as coworker who we have bbq's with all the time as well as ride with, didnt come to get his status in the usa that way ? Sure. If you say so, he isnt real, nor is his adorable little girls. 

He and his wife are still in Texas working for the same company, with their two kids about to have their third child. He has now worked for the same company for like 8 years. He was there when my brother started working there and we didnt know he was illegal until some ssn questioning was brought to the company. When the scare of him being deported came about, I dont know what happened exactly as I just know it was fixed and he is now legal and no more problems. If you are saying it doesnt happen, then I am telling you I know someone who my family is quite close with, that it happened for.


----------

