Immigration

The Problem of 'Documented Dreamers'

There are about 200,000 "Documented Dreamers" who were brought to the U.S. legally by parents who obtained work or student visas. Some now face deportation.

|

Padma Danturty has been a legal resident of the United States since she was 8 months old. But had she come to the country illegally, her future in the U.S. probably would be more secure.

That's because 18-year-old Danturty does not qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protects about 650,000 young immigrants who came to the U.S. unlawfully as children through no fault of their own. DACA beneficiaries, known as "Dreamers," are protected from deportation and able to apply for work permits.

Danturty, meanwhile, is one of about 200,000 "Documented Dreamers," people brought to the U.S. legally by parents who obtained work or student visas. These children face deportation if they are unable to obtain a green card or visa by the time they turn 21.

"I have no memory of it," she says of India, where she was born. "I can barely speak my native language, so it would be really hard to communicate. I don't know what I would do exactly."

The America's Cultivation of Hope and Inclusion for Long-Term Dependents Raised and Educated Natively Act would eliminate this nightmare scenario. Documented Dreamers would no longer have to race against time to avoid being sent to a foreign country. The bill would also allow Documented Dreamers to legally work in the U.S. and obtain driver's licenses in states where they currently cannot.

"I've heard from a number of my constituents that it affects their families," says Rep. Deborah Ross (D–N.C.), who introduced the House version of the bill earlier this year. "Many of their children come at young ages and really don't know any other place….The parents might even be able to stay with a [work] visa, but the child would have to leave. It's a heartbreaking situation."

Pareen Mhatre, 21, arrived in the U.S. when she was 4 months old. Her parents have remained on work visas as they wait for green cards, wading for years through a forest of red tape as Mhatre's clock kept ticking. If time runs out on her current visa, they will be allowed to stay, but she will have to leave for India.

"I've lived in this country for the past 21 years," she says. "It's really the only country I know."

NEXT: Brickbat: Smoke 'Em While You've Still Got 'Em

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Remember when we did immigration reform? Twice?

    Remember when people like Joe Biden swore on a stack of bibles that if we passed an amnesty along with these reforms, they would enforce immigration laws and nobody would come illegally because they would not be able to work?

    Remember how you have to provide documentation every time you get a job??

    Yeah, we have played this game before.

    They are not being honest. They are creating these problems on purpose. They want illegal immigration. They want undocumented workers.

    By playing the game using their language, their talking points and their fake outrages, you avoid the real issue. Why do they want an underclass of illegal immigrants who are not legally allowed to work?

    Because we have a system for legal immigration that can easily accommodate changes to the numbers of immigrants allowed. Yet nobody turns that knob. They all go with the "periodic amnesty" version, along with decades of illegal immigrants working illegally.

    Why are we tacitly supporting this by playing along?

    1. Irrelevant in these type cases Cyto. Their parents were documented.

      By the way, the last attempt at immigration reform was in 2013 when a bill which passed the Senate with bi-partisan support and would have passed the House according to vote counters, was killed by the GOP under the "Hastert Rule" under which no legislation would be allowed to come up for a vote if not supported by a GOP majority. This was under the Obama Administration, which deported more immigrants than any other president in US history.

      https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-perspective

      1. And in 2006 you had a bill that promised a compromise of work visas and legal status but it was killed by Democrats, with Obama as the last vote on a poison pill amendment, to kill it.

        Your interest isn't letting foreigners work. Your interest is in amnesty and increasing vote shares.

        1. And increased burden on already bloated government programs and spending.

          End the welfare state. Open the borders. In that order.

          1. What? Make people support themselves, and welcome more people here to do that?

            How dare you!

            1. After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me... They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500... Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet...Read all about it here... READ MORE

        2. That's not correct Jesse. The bill passed the Senate with Obama voting yes and the GOP led House passed it's own version, but led by Republicans they never took up reconciling the bills, complaining that the Senate bill was not strong enough on enforcment.

          https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1092/vote_109_2_00157.htm

          https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/jan/26/ronald-brownstein/did-senators-pass-immigration-reform-bills-2006-20/

          1. God damn youre a no nothing gaslighting shit.

            https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/280475-gop-blames-obama-for-failure-of-last-senate-push-on-immigration

            Obama had agreed to join a bipartisan group of 10 to kill poison pill amendments in 2007. He broke from that agreement on a union bill that the gop said would kill the bill.

            Do you get paid by the lie or by the post?

            1. Know nothing*

            2. Jesse, you previously cited the 2006 Immigration Bill, claiming Obama killed it. I demonstrated the falsity of that claim and showed he actually voted for it. Now it's a 2007 bill. Are you sure this time? If so, I'll look up your claim, but start with the premise - I think you can accept this - that the GOP making a claim against a Democratic presidential candidate may not be the most believable source.

              1. Lol. You knew damn well what I was referring to. It happened 15 years ago dummy. 2007 was largely the same as 2006 meant to be a bipartisan passage with the 10 senators.

                This is you gaslighting. It was obvious what was being said, what actions I was referring to and you attempt to gaslight it away. 2006 vs 2007 isn't the primary of the discussion, but the fact Obama killed the last bipartisan effort. That is the main of the argument.

                1. Jesse, the last bipartisan effort was in 2013 when Obama led the attempt to pass the bill and the GOP House leadership killed the bill. Your evidence consists of GOP talking points against a presidential candidate.

                  1. And that changes Obama killing an actual bipartisan one due to an election year and him running why?

                    The fact is the left has not agreed to work visas. They demand amnesty. We know how that works due to 1986. Democrats lie about supporting enhanced security after the amnesty and then never follow through. The exit visa checks from 86 still don't fucking exist.

                    Democrats are liars. The right is correct in demanding security first. Because they've been lied to multiple times.

                    1 million visas a year are what is issued. That is plenty. But instead of focusing in economic visas like Canada, dems focus on family and lotteries.

                    1. You haven't established your accusation Jesse, though you've spent 4-5 rounds demonstrating your impotence in that attempt.

                      PS Obama deported more illegals than any President in US history

                    2. All 0blama did was change the definition of the word and counted those turned away at the border as being "deported", which had never been included in the count.
                      You commies love to change the meaning of words and then use the new one to make another lie.

                2. Jesse, you assume I am a mind reader, or like you, fully versed in GOP talking points. Neither is true, and until looking up these bills and the BS and false attributions (NPR my ass) on which you are staking your ever changing accusations, I could not tell you anything about either the 2006 or 2007 immigration bills. I can the 2013 bill because it was more recent and would have clearly passed both Houses of Congress, which is why the GOP leadership wouldn't bring it to the floor, and been signed by Obama who led the attempt. It's example of a lost opportunity is more glaring.

          2. Obama himself voted for at least one amendment labeled a "poison pill" by Edward Kennedy and other leaders of the bipartisan effort in 2007. Kennedy knew that you had to disappoint some liberal groups to hold a bipartisan coalition together. Obama, then running for president, didn't go along.

            This is from NPR. Even they admit it.

            https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128354898

            1. Dude, the article is an opinion piece from Michael Barone, a Republican opinion writer, not NPR reporting and it is dated 2010.

              You're quoting GOP talking points as if they were news and this article questions that interpretation of events.

              https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/07/on-immigration-poison-pills-or-booster-shots/53766/

              At this point, do you even know what point you are trying to make, other than that the US president who oversaw the highest number of deportations in US history and was a supporter of the last 2 significant immigration reform bills - 2006 and also 2013 when he was president and party leader - was actually against immigration reform and for weak borders?

              1. Lol. The Atlantic. What the actual fuck. They have zero credibility if you are going to claim bias.

                Fucking hilarious.

                1. Unlike the Barone opinion piece, the Atlantic article quotes McCain and by citing the facts on various amendments offered, which clearly demonstrates the ambiguous nature of the shows the dubious nature of his campaign season attacks.

                2. Guess we cannot use history books as references given Gaslighting Joe’s new standard of “three years after is unacceptable.”

                  Watched a documentary last night on a group of WW2 Canadian soldiers that served in the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment). Seems like Joe would dismiss the recounts of the Dutch that they helped free because it was many decades later.

                  1. Chumby, Jesse linked an opinion piece by well known GOP attack dog M Barone as if it was news reporting by NPR, where it appeared. Adding to the evidence of the ridiculousness of that claim was that it was published 3 years after the alleged transgression. If you are equally confused about the difference between news reporting and opinion pieces I advise studying the concepts and/or refraining from commenting.

                    1. Joe, NPR published it.

                      “Red SUV crashes into crowd. Injuries reported.” <- news reporting

                      “Man in motorcycle accident dies from covid.” <- news reporting

                      “Capitol Police officer killed by protester with fire extinguisher.” <- news reporting

                      If you are really confused about media bias I advise studying the concepts and/or refraining from commenting.

                    2. Chumby, most respected national news sources, including the NYTs, NPR, WaPo, WSJ, etc print opinion pieces, and even ones at odds with their own editorial opinion pieces. These are not news articles which the source will stand behind.

                      Are you in junior high?

                    3. Respected by whom?

                      Joe, those aren’t from op-ed pieces or letters to the editor section.

                      Are you in your ninth year of high school?

                    4. Jobe, you keep typing things into the comment boxes, and it appears that you believe that this will make your arguments more persuasive.

                      I just want to let you know that it's having the opposite effect.

      2. And their parents knew the deal: they were on temporary work visas, not green cards, and were expected to return to their country of origin.

        That’s why we have temporary work visas and green cards and why they are different.

    2. I agree. Yet when I suggest turning that knob to allow more legal immigration, I am told I'm a dirty filthy open borders libruhl. When I point out that they just said five minutes earlier that they were only opposed to "legal" immigration, they accuse me of twisting their words.

      Make it easier to come into the country legally. Turn the spigot up. I'm tired of the union mentality that wants to limit the supply of labor. Used to be a thing on the left. Now the unions membership has moved to the right and now the right is labor protectionist as well. Both sides. Both sides want massive restrictions on immigration, want higher minimum wages to block immigrants from reaching the lowest rung.

      Jeepers cripes, when did we become France?

      1. I'd argue 1M a year is more than generous and adequate.

    3. OBL approves.

  2. Her parents did not naturalize themselves and their children, because?

    Wh is this a problem for, and who caused it?

    1. The Democrats want a tidal wave of future support from illegal aliens who are granted citizenship. The Republicans want the borders to become secure, but are not opposed to legal immigration that has some measure of control.
      It is almost certainly impossible to deport the 10-13 million illegals already here in the US.
      So - build the wall, have all refugee applicants go through hearings outside the US and issue green cards to all illegal immigrants who can prove four years residency. Those people will never be allowed citizenship, so can never vote, but on the good side, won't be called for jury duty. If, like Padma, the illegals came to the US under the age of 14, we assume they had no part in the illegal nature of their immigration, and they can become naturalized.
      Believe that almost all illegals just want the security of not being deported and the opportunity to work legally. Almost none care about voting.

      1. And yet the rep from NC calls them "constituents"

      2. "It is almost certainly impossible to deport the 10-13 million illegals already here in the US."
        What about the other 17 million estimated to have joined that number, which hasn't changed since about 2000.
        And that was before Senile Zhou Bai-dung let in another 2 million, and counting.

    2. Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

  3. You know I’m a dreamer,
    But my heart’s of gold.

    1. I've always been a dreamer
      Spent my life running round
      And it's so hard to change
      Can't seem to settle down
      And like get a green card

  4. Pass it and the sooner the better. This is ridiculous.

    1. It should require an environmental impact study. And should prove it will be carbon neutral.

    2. Your gaslighting and open leftism is what is ridiculous.

  5. Her parents have remained on work visas as they wait for green cards, wading for years through a forest of red tape as Mhatre's clock kept ticking.

    Government isn't much good at solving problems, but it sure is good at creating them.

    1. Work visas are temporary, by definition. If you are on one, you must plan for having to go back to wherever you came from.

      If a temporary visa now creates the expectation of permanently staying in the US, let’s get rid of them entirely and require everybody who wants to work in the US to get a green card from the start. That way, we can have an honest political discussion about immigration.

      1. Agreed. The system is unnecessarily complicated.

      2. This. If I'm here in a temporary work visa. Why would my children have any expectation of permanent residence rights?

        It's almost like they've been lying from the beginning.

        I also can't help but notice that this is about "deportation of the child" instead of " we had a good run, It's time for the family to go home"

      3. My family moved to Japan when I was three years old. The years we lived there were the years my identity was formed. We kids spoke the language, attended Japanese schools, and more or less developed Japanese ideas and sensibilities.
        But my folks never assumed that our time there entitled me to stay forever, much less gain citizenship. Because of that reality, they made sure that I always knew that I was American, and we spoke mostly English at home.
        The kid used as an example in the article has been let down by her parents. They certainly knew that as citizens of India, they would eventually return there. Did they honestly not teach their kid the language and customs of the country in which she holds citizenship?
        When you apply to reside in another country, you have to agree to a set of rules. Then, you should expect to be held to those rules. If you don't think the rules are fair, then just don't go.

  6. Holy Shit! Did Reason finally get rid of AnyClip? I have been sending them complaints about it all year. It's about time the comments were useable again.

    1. Fist is going to be paying reason for early access subscriptions.

      1. Am hoping for a Reason social credit system where higher scores get avatars and pins.

  7. When the parents got student or work visas, were their children guaranteed citizenship? If not, then blame the parents, not the government. This is identical to the Dreamer shit. "Well, they're here now - you can't possibly deny them!"

    Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill, saying 'this once, and no more.' Somehow, it keeps happening.

    1. And the security portions of the bill were never executed.

      1. Who would have ever thought the democrats were lying?

        1. If you care hard enough its not lying.

  8. I really don't understand all the hatred directed towards these people.

    They came to America as children, and for all intensive purposes they're Americans. They've gone to American schools, they have American accents, and they're steeped in American culture.

    All that's missing is some stupid paperwork.

    1. Ohhhhhh, I get it. Conservatives fear that these people will vote for the other side, and there is nothing conservatives hate more than subhumans who don't vote the way they want.

      1. No, you don’t get it. I was in that situation. And I left when my visa ran out, then reapplied. I expect that others do the same.

        1. We're talking about children who are basically Americans, not their irresponsible immigrant parents.

          1. Sucks that their parents put them in the position. The problem is with their parents, not the government here. Just because their parents robbed a bank, we wouldn't allow them to keep the money.

          2. Yes, I came here as a child, became "basically American", and had to return to a country I didn't know much and hated. That's the deal when you come to the US on a non-immigrant visa.

            Whether that's "irresponsible" on the part of the parents is debatable; I thought it was still a good deal.

            1. "basically American" means "not American".

    2. "intents and purposes"

      1. Meaning what? Immigrants are genetically predisposed to vote for Democrats or something?

        1. The fact that Democrats keep expressing shock and disgust that some poor people vote for Republicans pretty clearly reveals Democratic expectations.

          1. Which has what to do with vehement conservative opposition to giving citizenship to people who have lived basically their entire lives in this country, but lack proper paperwork?

            1. They don’t just lack proper paperwork, they are violating the agreement under which they were admitted into the country. They received temporary work permits and agreed to leave when those permits ran out.

              If temporary work permits are now to be treated as granting a right to citizenship, let’s abolish the category and require all foreign workers and students to get green cards up front.

              1. Kids made a legal agreement?

                1. Parents made it on their kids accounts.

                  We're treating them like we'd treat the kids of non-citizens.

            2. Qualifications are qualifications. Whining about how unfair things are does not really change that.

        2. Meaning you don't know your own language.

    3. Really how can people be so cruel as to not see that these kids are part of our community and culture. This is an easy call, get them deferred status, then give all the deferred status citizenship. These kids are an asset not a liability.

      1. From the conservative point of view they are subhumans who will vote for the political opposition. That means they must be deported. So what if they don't know the language, culture or customs of their "home" country. Better they die in a gutter than vote for Democrats.

        1. Seriously. Read any post by Ken. All immigrants are progressives, and progressives are subhuman.

          I'm really surprised conservatives aren't promoting eugenics.

          1. Ken, the guy who argues for more open borders and less restrictive immigration policy?

        2. "From the conservative point of view they are subhumans who will vote for the political opposition."

          Yup, don't take sides. Not once.

          THEIR PARENTS WERE NOT CITIZENS. They have zero claims to citizenship. They can apply just as anybody else can.

          1. And if you thought they'd vote for Republicans would you still be so vehemently opposed?

      2. The cruelty was inflicted on these kids by their parents, who raised the false expectations that they could stay.

        The American people were quite clear: the arrangement was temporary from the start.

        1. American people? What does that mean? The federal government?

          The government is not the people. The people is society. All the government is is a gang of people within society who get their way by initiating violence. They're not the American people.

          1. Get the votes to pass totally open borders.

            Otherwise, STFU.

          2. American people? What does that mean? The federal government?

            It means that American voters chose representatives who put these laws into place.

            And while I disagree with many of the laws that US representatives pass, I obey them and I expect others to obey them.

            1. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

              I lost respect for the law a long time ago.

              1. I lost respect for the law a long time ago.

                Well, and because of your fashionable, ignorant, privileged US middle class disdain for America and your broken moral compass, you want to burn this country down.

                But despite the many things that are wrong in the US, as an immigrant, I know how much better it is than all the alternatives out there. And people like me will resist people like you as long as we can.

                1. Actually, my moral compass is quite intact. I had a choice between it or the law. I chose morality. Show me someone with a broken moral compass and I'll show you someone who does not question their government's legislation.

                  1. Actually, my moral compass is quite intact.

                    We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

                    I had a choice between it or the law. I chose morality.

                    You are welcome to do that if you're willing to face the consequences.

                    Show me someone with a broken moral compass and I'll show you someone who does not question their government's legislation.

                    Everybody questions lots of legislation; that doesn't make you morally superior. What you advocate is lawlessness and inequality under the law, and that is unacceptable; it is certainly not a moral position.

            2. Quote is from Bastiat's The Law.

              http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

              1. You forgot one part...You don't represent what the people want.
                Polls say the majority of the American people support the laws that say illegal immigrants should be deported.
                It is these machinations, that allow illegals to stay, that are disrespecting the laws and the will of the people.
                And that's what these weak efforts to create different categories of illegal aliens are, just machinations, all to try to get some idiots to think this group should be treated differently that the law proscribes.

    4. I came here as a child. When our visas ran out, I left the country. It’s what people sign up for when they come here on a temporary work or student visa.

      So, suck it up and fulfill your part of the deal under which you were allowed into the country.

      1. Since when were minors expected to understand and abide by legal agreements?

        1. Minors are bound by the legal agreements parents enter into on their behalf.

          That is precisely why these kids have to leave when they become adults.

      2. Note your wording

        "When our visas ran out, I left the country."

        Trying to make it sound like you made a heroic personal decision to honor your agreement, rather than just following your parents. Unless you had some confrontation and left them to remain illegally while you somehow got yourself outside the borders as an unaccompanied minor, all the "credit" belongs to them and not to you.

        You also don't seem to understand the concept of passing a new law and repealing the old one. We can do that. "But it's the law" is not rational argument when someone is proposing to change the law.

        But congratulations on your rapid assimilation. Reminds me of guy I met who walked right out of his citizenship ceremony and said "too damn many foreigners in this country".

        1. Trying to make it sound like you made a heroic personal decision to honor your agreement, rather than just following your parents.

          I'm not "trying to make it sound" like anything. I am saying that my parents obeyed the law, I obeyed the law, and I expect others to do the same. I don't have any sympathy for people who came here knowing that their stay was temporary but who think they are entitled to a green card.

          You also don't seem to understand the concept of passing a new law and repealing the old one. We can do that.

          I understand that just fine, and I encourage you to try and pass such a law. We can then have an open debate about what the law should be, what the levels of immigration should be, and who should and should not receive precedence. In fact, the law, as written, is actually pretty good. The problem is that for decades, the executive branch has been ignoring the law.

          Reminds me of guy I met who walked right out of his citizenship ceremony and said "too damn many foreigners in this country".

          Yes, and you obviously are still the kind of dumb, ignorant, privileged, entitled American who doesn't understand what he meant by that.

          But congratulations on your rapid assimilation.

          Oh, I clearly haven't assimilated: I don't buy into your touchy-feely, progressive b.s.

          1. "dumb, ignorant, privileged, entitled American who doesn't understand what he meant by that."

            Actually, he's a close friend of mine and I know exactly what he meant. He was making fun of nativist rednecks, and hypocrites like yourself.

            You got in under some provision or other. It doesn't matter what law you followed: you and your nativist allies here don't like legal immigrants any better than the others, you gave away that when you admitted you want to restrict legal immigration too.

            And by coming here and simply existing, you "stole" somebody's job, you use resources, you cancel someone else's vote, you breath "our" air. Yup, all the things you hate about immigrants. Your naturalization certificate doesn't make you any more or less of a burden or benefit to the economy or society.

            And yes, a native-born person born to native-born parents born to native-born grandparents also occupies a job, uses resources, votes, and breathes. That's why those complaints are disingenuous.

            1. hypocrites like yourself.

              I don't see what you think is "hypocritical" about my position. I came in under a system of limited, merit-based immigration, a system that is still the law today. I would like that system to continue and be enforced. You want to change it.

              when you admitted you want to restrict legal immigration too.

              Correct: I want to restrict legal immigration, to about half a million new immigrants per year, with anybody who becomes a public charge or violates the law being deported and banned from the country. That's the system I immigrated under, that system is the law today, and that is the actual number of immigrants authorized by Congress. You want to change it, not me.

              He was making fun of nativist rednecks

              Well, I immigrated to the US because I wanted to be surrounded by what you call "nativist rednecks", people who in my experience have been generous, welcoming, open minded, and hard working.

              I wouldn't have immigrated to a country filled with people like you.

    5. So, you continually break the law for long enough - don't forget each second is a new violation - you get to forget it is against the law?
      What a lawless world sarc wants us to have.
      Yes, the "stupid paperwork" that is missing is exoneration for the constant law-breaking.

    6. 'intensive purposes'? I guess you went to american schools, public ones.

  9. So here's a question. If abortion is fine five minutes before birth, but infanticide is murder five minutes after birth, then... why is someone a dirty despicable illegal (murderer and rapist) if they were born five minutes before their mother crossed the border, but a full citizens if born five minutes after their mother crossed the border?

    What is it with a kulturwar right that can't accept someone who has lived in this country all of their life as being an American? What is it with the bureaucratic left that they have to kick these people out over arbitrary rules? Both sides are idiots. Both sides.

    1. That’s one of the reasons some people think birthright citizenship is stupid, isn’t it?

      1. It's not stupid. It means you're a citizen if you were born here. Otherwise it's up to the politicians (ei. Democrats) to decide if you're a citizen or not. We have a constitution for a reason. We have a 14th amendment because politicians didn't want to give citizen to a huge swath of people.

        1. We have the section of the 14th amendment because some states didn't want slaves to be considered as citizens.
          If the framers of that ill-conceived addition to our founding document knew how it would be used, they would have made clear that "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" meant "of parents that were here legally".
          Which is what the Wong Kim Ark decision actually says.

      2. So, DesigNate. We abolish birthright citizenship and start fresh.

        Why should you be a citizen, then? We could set up a committee and you make a case to them for how the US benefits by having you here instead of replacing you with some applicant from Costa Rica. Since you said birthplace shouldn't matter, we expect you to refrain from using that in your application.

        Remember that you start the meeting in the red. You've used roads, taken up a seat in schools, your parents got a big tax deduction. Costa Rica guy hasn't done any of that, I think he deserves some points. What points do you have?

        1. Remember that you start the meeting in the red

          No, he doesn't. Americans who have been here for many generations have received their right to citizenship by inheritance: their ancestors built the cities, fought in wars, tilled the soil, built the factories, and raised generation after generation. The ancestors of Costa Rican guy did none of that.

          1. "Americans who have been here for many generations"

            Absolutely nobody was here before they were born (well, maybe conceived but that's a different uncivil argument than this one).

            The argument that he's owed something because of some stuff his great-grandparents did is precisely the same argument as that used to justify cash reparations for slavery. And it has the same flaws: (1) making responsibility genetic rather than individual, (2) ignoring that everyone has many ancestors, and not all of them were on the right side, (3) and the argument always cuts off history at a point carefully engineered to benefit a certain group.

            1. And it has the same flaws: (1) making responsibility genetic rather than individual

              I'm saying that the children of American citizens (black, white, or anything else) inherit their citizenship, individually and specifically from their parents, just like they inherit money, homes, etc. Guatemalans do not. Genetics has nothing to do with it.

              (2) ignoring that everyone has many ancestors, and not all of them were on the right side

              As long as parents own something legally, they can leave it to their children. Whether you think they were "on the right side" or deserve it is irrelevant.

              (3) and the argument always cuts off history at a point carefully engineered to benefit a certain group.

              There is nothing "engineered". Europeans conquered North America, founded a nation, and established citizenship and property rights. That's not an "engineered cutoff" or a matter of choice or perspective, it's a historical fact. Whatever was in North America before has ceased to exist and has no relevance. Americans even granted the conquered people citizenship and equality, something that's a lot nicer than what Native Americans did to the people they conquered.

              You are so caught up in racist and Marxist thinking that you have to view everything through the lens of "genetic relationships" and "cutting off history".

        2. DesigNate has the point that his parents, or at least one of them, was a citizen of this country, and Costa Rican doesn't.
          That makes it game, set, and match.
          Magic soil doesn't hack it. It is from whence the parents have obtained legal status. If neither have it from the U.S. then the child, regardless of the location of the whelping, cannot be a citizen of this nation.

          1. The biggest practical consequences of citizen/PR status are that you are not going to be deported, and you are allowed to work.

            On the work, I don't think DesigNate's momma is a job qualification. If someone with the wrong momma can do the job better I'd rather hire that person, and have the government and you butt out of the decision.

            On the deportation, I'd ask the arresting authority one question: is this guy subject to US jurisdiction? If you say yes, he's a citizen, let him go. If you say no, you have no right to arrest him, let him go.

            1. Well, you can come up with your own legal theories, but that's neither how the US works, nor is it how a libertarian society works.

        3. I didn’t say I thought it was stupid, but some people do think it’s stupid that you can cross into Montana while the baby is crowning and that baby isn’t Canadian.

          Personally, I’ve always been ambivalent about birthright citizenship. Thanks for assuming my position though.

    2. If I steal your car, put gas in it, regularly change the oil and replace the tires as needed, do I own it after X years?

      1. If I steal your car and have my 3-year old kid with me, regularly change the oil and replace the tires as needed, do you imprison the kid X years later?

        1. If the kid is driving the car...yes, there will be legal issues. Possessing a stolen car, especially since they know you stole the car.

        2. The kid does not get to keep the car.

          1. OK, fair enough. So what is the "car" the kid stole from you? If it's some kind of joint property and I'm part owner with you, then I'm fine with him using it but I don't recall giving your kids permission. How about your kid goes and waits in Juarez while we hash this out?

            1. The benefit of my tax dollar. Their mom and dad were not paying into that system. And they haven’t either.

              As mentioned elsewhere, end the welfare state. All of it. And I’ll gladly support open borders.

              1. So children's citizenship is justified by their parents taxpaying? Interesting.

                1. If it's really about taxes, then you presumably support limiting how many kids an average taxpayer can dump into the system. Of course Elon Musk can put in a small state's worth, but maybe two for the average family. Of course they can have more, but the extras would be deported (Nothing against the extras, you'll gladly let them return after the welfare state is abolished, all of it).
                2. The flip side is that you'd support deporting the kids of citizens who pay not enough taxes. Since it's only about taxes. And only until the welfare state is abolished....of course.
                3. I'm childless and pay taxes. What was I paying for? Your kids? I'd rather pay for that pretty girl in the article, she looks more deserving. That's an idea: how about any childless person who's paid, say, at least $500K in lifetime taxes, gets to give a ticket to the immigrant of their choice, or to some charity that can make the pick. I pick her. Because citizenship is about the taxes.
                4. Or maybe all that's all BS and you're really just against open borders and the tax/welfare stuff is just away to talk libertarian knowing your condition won't ever be met.

                1. I support eliminating the welfare state. All of it. As posted here multiple times. You seem to have reading comprehension issues.

                  Afterwards, open the borders.

                  The US is heavily in debt and is accelerating the the deficit direction. Adding more spending to that is a bad idea.

        3. Deportation is not punishment.
          It is returning the situation to as closes as you can make it to what it was before the law was broken.
          Unless you think anyone not living in the U.S. is being punished.

          1. Leaving somebody alone is not punishment.

            Sending out officers to handcuff someone, hurt them if they resist, stuff them into a prisoner van, incarcerate them for a while, then forcibly transport them to another country, is maybe not punishment. It just happens to be identical to how England used to punish criminals in the 19th century.

            1. They could avoid all of that if they complied with the law. The same thing will happen if they attempt to remain in a museum after it closes.

    3. I agree: birthright citizenship should be abolished, like it has been everywhere else. Only children of US citizens should acquire US citizenship by birth.

      1. I disagree. The US Constitution was amended to say that anyone born in the US is a citizen. If you don't like it then amend the constitution.

        1. First of all, I simply said that the US should abolish birthright citizenship, if necessary by an amendment.

          However, the 14A does not establish birthright citizenship; it only establishes birthright citizenship for people "subject to the jurisdiction of the US". Illegal aliens and temporary residents do not fall into that category.

          1. According to what you said upthread, you are foreign born. If you aren't yet a citizen, maybe you should consider that it's *our* constitution and our interpretation of the 14th takes precedence over yours.

            If you are now naturalized, congratulations, and recall that you took an oath to "support and defend the constitution...without mental reservations". Did you have some private mental reservations about the 14th Amendment as publicly interpreted by our Supreme Court and Congress?

            1. If you are now naturalized, congratulations, and recall that you took an oath to "support and defend the constitution...without mental reservations". Did you have some private mental reservations about the 14th Amendment as publicly interpreted by our Supreme Court and Congress?

              Not at all. I support and defend the Constitution. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything it says, or every way that SCOTUS has interpreted/corrupted it over the last century.

              But don't you worry: if the US turns into the kind of authoritarian sh*thole as the country is overwhelmed by nasty people like you, if the US turns into the kind of country I cannot support anymore, I will give up my US citizenship and leave.

              For now, I hope the country can still turn the corner and throw people and ideologies like yours to the dustbin of history, where you belong.

              1. You have some ideas what my ideology is? The only thing we've talked about is immigration.

                1. Yes. Although it may surprise you, your views on immigration tell a lot about your ideology, i.e., your beliefs about economics, political power, and natural rights.

                  1. I think you're the one with lots tells here. You could learn something about yourself by considering your inconsistencies.

                    1. Economics: Although you like to think you're a free market type, you want the government to protect you from competition in the labor market. I think employment is a private agreement between consenting adults and mostly none of the governments (or your) business, but you think it's some kind of societal resource needing government intervention to "level the playing field" for people with the right working papers, namely yourself. Diagnosis: you're a socialist (but to your credit, you realize you should deny it) with some mild nationalist tendencies.

                    2. Political power: You've made it crystal clear that your requirement for citizenship is that elections turn out the right way. Diagnosis: Traditional socialists want to limit the options on the ballot to just the right ones, sub-rosa socialists want to limit the electorate to just the right people. Same objective, same philosophy, slightly different means.

                    3. Natural rights: I also believe natural rights are individual, unlike you, who believes they are collective. I absolutely support your right to keep immigrants (or citizens) off your lawn and out of your house. Now stop trying to control who I let into my house, my land, and my workplace. I also believe freedom of movement is a fairly important natural right, although perhaps not an absolute. You value it at less than zero, in fact, deep down you kinda hate that particular right, don't you? Diagnosis...you know.

                    1. I'm nearly retired, wealthy, and can work pretty much anywhere in the world: I don't need protection in the labor market.

                      I certainly believe in freedom of movement, freedom of association, and private property; you clearly do not because that's not what you advocate at all. What you advocate is a selfish attempt to enrich yourself at the expense of others.

                      I grew up under socialism; it is idiots like you who bring it about. You think you are standing up for liberty and natural rights, but in the end you are just destroying the country.

            2. Congress didn't interpret the 14th that way.
              Neither did the SCOTUS.
              The Wong Kim Ark decision stated that he was considered a citizen, but what most people overlook is that his parents were legal resident when he was born, thus not granting citizenship to those, whose parents hadn't obtained that status.
              That decision has been misused millions of times, but our "legal" system is such a joke that it has been left to stand.

        2. But people supporting legal immigration only are doing that. "Dreamer" supporters are seeking an end-around the Constitution.

  10. Don't even try to tell me her parents have been here for 20 years and haven't been able to get a green card. They haven't been trying very hard.

    1. Has anyone you known had to fight through the system?

      1. Yes, and it didn't take 20 years. Her parents clearly weren't trying.

        1. And for that she must pay! Deport the bitch! She's probably a Democrat!

          1. Yes, yes, and yes.

            1. I'd bet a paycheck that most conservatives would change their tune if they thought immigrants voted differently, meaning that they don't give a fuck about laws or principles or freedom or justice. Just winning elections.

              1. Yes again. What's your point?

                I'm an immigrant myself. If I wanted to be surrounded by the kinds of people living in the sh*thole I emigrated from, I would have had to come to the US. As an immigrant, I want restrictive and limited immigration to the US. As an immigrant, I don't want progressives and socialists to wreck this country like they have wrecked other countries.

                I am for restrictive immigration policies precisely because I care about laws, principles, freedom, and justice.

                1. "If I wanted to be surrounded by the kinds of people living in the sh*thole I emigrated from, I would have had to come to the US."

                  I see. You wanted to leave because it was a bad place. They want to leave because it was a bad place. You are different and better than them.

                  Got it.

                  1. He understands the tragedy of commons. And the legal processes in place to determine the capacity of immigration.

                    I’m all for open borders the day after the existing welfare state ends.

                  2. You are different and better than them.

                    No, merely lucky. What's your point? It sounds like you're saying that because sometimes people win $1 million in the state lottery, the state should hand out $1 million to everybody who asks. That doesn't work. And the equivalent doesn't work for immigration either.

                    FWIW, my preferred immigration policy is abolition of the welfare state combined with open borders. But as long as the US government showers people with benefits, immigration needs to be tightly limited.

                2. So you admit that you have no principles, you don't care about rule of law, you have no empathy, that all you care about is political power.

                  Good to know.

                  1. So you admit that you have no principles

                    I don't see what "principle" you think I'm violating. I immigrated under a system where a limited number of foreigners were allowed to immigrate into the US, in part based on merit, in part based on luck. I want to continue that system; you want to change it.

                    you don't care about rule of law

                    The law says that if you and your family come on a temporary work visa, they must leave when the visa expires and/or when children become adults. I want that enforced as written. That's the rule of law. You want to change it.

                    you have no empathy

                    I have a lot of empathy: I know exactly how painful it will be for those kids to have to return to a country they don't know because I went through it myself. But I have more empathy for the 330 million Americans who will suffer if the lawlessness you advocate is allowed to continue.

                    1. The only principle I see is "Who do I think they will vote for and does it benefit my political tribe."

                    2. Perhaps that's the only principle you see because it's the only principle you know.

                      My principles with respect to immigration are actually simple: it should be according to the law, the laws should be applied equally, the laws should be enforced, and the laws should be made according to the process laid out in the US Constitution.

                      What are your principles?

              2. "I'd bet a paycheck that most conservatives would change their tune if they thought immigrants voted differently"

                ...progressives would not, though, right?

                1. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy that attempts to counter an accusation of unethical behavior by pointing out that other people--and perhaps the accuser herself--can be accused of that behavior. This specious reasoning is a special type of ad hominem attack. "Whataboutism" is one particularly well known instance of this technique.

                  1. You can define fallacies in an attempt to make an argument. Just noting that you're self-professed "not taking sides" seems...suspect.

                    1. "Whatabout him! He did it first! He'd do the same thing! He does it more! Why are you looking at me! Waaahhh!"

                  2. You are engaging in the "tu quoque" type of reasoning.

                    In fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong for conservatives to want more immigration from people who vote conservative, and want less immigration from people who vote socialist.

                    It is the Democrats who explicitly want to use demographics and migration to change the culture, ethnicity, and political direction of this country in the direction of socialism and progressivism.

                    1. Tu quoque is to justify bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior.

                      I'm saying they're both wrong.

                    2. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy that attempts to counter an accusation of unethical behavior by pointing out that other people

                      I and others accuse you of engaging in unethical behavior.

                      You counter by accusing others of unethical behavior.

                      The shoe fits... you.

          2. Is everyone, living outside the U.S., having to "pay"?
            No one is saying she should be jailed, or fined.
            She has to go live in the country from where her citizenship resides.
            Billions of people don't live here.
            They aren't being made to "pay" anything.

      2. I fought through the system myself.

  11. "'Her parents have remained on work visas as they wait for green cards, wading for years through a forest of red tape as Mhatre's clock kept ticking."

    Here in lies the problem. Immigration reform needs to start with getting rid of too many bureaucratic obstacles for people to become legal citizens. Some commenters blame the parents for not getting naturalized, but they are stuck in the red tape.

    Two clients, one a doctor, took 16 years to get naturalized. Married, a child, homeowner, successful practice, and a myriad of BS back and forth with immigration bureaucratic idiocy. The other a laborer, green card holder. Always working, married, had children (legal residents), sent back multiple times to reapply for the green card. Kids were out of high school by the time he got permanent resident status and is now fighting the bureaucratic nightmare for citizenship.

    The greatest immigration problems to solve are the obstacles in allowing people that want to be citizens fight through the system.

    1. Government has all the time in the world, and it uses it. Immigrants do not.

    2. I support mail in immigration. Or possibly an app to facilitate this. Then hopefully, 400 million Chinese will be able to become US citizens if they want to be.

    3. Here in lies the problem. Immigration reform needs to start with getting rid of too many bureaucratic obstacles for people to become legal citizens. Some commenters blame the parents for not getting naturalized, but they are stuck in the red tape

      The parents came on temporary work visas, not immigrant visas. They were not supposed to stay in the country for more than a few years. In fact, getting a temporary work visa with the intent of immigrating later used to be a serious violation of immigration law. That's a system that makes sense.

      Over the last few decades, temporary work visas have turned into stealth immigration visas. That's what's causing these problems. It avoids politicians having to have an honest discussion about the level of immigration Americans actually want.

      We need to return to a system where temporary work visas are actually temporary: three years, no extensions, no exceptions. If you come to the US with the intent to stay, you should have to apply for a green card directly, from outside the country, and exactly and only the number of green cards should be available that Congress decides should be available.

      1. NYOB2, dude, you've got your head securely screwed on to your shoulders.
        Well done!

  12. '"I have no memory of it," she says of India, where she was born. "I can barely speak my native language, so it would be really hard to communicate. I don't know what I would do exactly."'

    Perhaps an exciting career in US corporate call centers?

  13. Deceased Voters Matter

  14. But had she come to the country illegally, her future in the U.S. probably would be more secure.

    Finally, some honest journalism. Do we see the problem here?

    1. In their hatred of American citizens they accidentally caused some collateral damage among the sacred non-citizen black and brown bodies?

    2. LOL.
      Just as taking the "discretion" from the DACAsses status would only make them subject to the same chance, of being removed from this country, as the rest of the illegal aliens sponging off our nation.

      1. Retired guy with social security check accuses the guy mowing the lawn to earn money of "sponging".

        1. Quite correctly as well. The retired American with a social security check likely paid more than he ever receives in government services or retirement benefits.

          The illegal alien mowing the lawn will likely never make a net positive economic or fiscal contribution to the US in his lifetime.

  15. "I've lived in this country for the past 21 years," she says. "It's really the only country I know."

    The good news is, when you get to India, you won't have to deal with the rampant, soul-crushing racism and misogyny you've been subjected to here. Your economic opportunities will flourish. Plus free healthcare, right?

    1. Plus you can still shit in the streets.

      1. Just like San Francisco then.

  16. "You can't cancel my VISA Card just because it's over it's limit!"
    Self-Entitlement at it's finest.

  17. The headline is misleading, I'm still waiting to find out the "problem".

  18. Just open them borders… what could possibly go wrong…

  19. Until the borders (and air and sea ports) are sealed tighter than a drum, deport them. If all borders are secured and you can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt you are a long term illegal and you can stay; no citizenship, or voting rights, (Fed or Local) though. It's a fair compromise.

  20. Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this. 2:22 A GHOST STORY

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.