5 ms·

Wow, so a person is brought into a country a 7. At 20, she still has no legal right to be there, and if caught, can be sent back to "her" country? That's effed

Wow, so a person is brought into a country a 7. At 20, she still has no legal right to be there, and if caught, can be sent back to "her" country? That's effed up.

tehwalrus 13y ago
similar things for some Britons, mostly of Jamaican origin. If they arrived as children after some date in the 80s, they're in the country "legally", but they're not citizens. They're not allowed to get a passport, and if they leave the country there's no guarantee they'll be allowed back in. Often, they don't realise this until they're ~20, whenever they first apply for a passport - and they have to go through a lengthy process of applying for citizenship, which can take up to 5 years (or longer, what was that backlog?) and still might not be successful. Which can kind of mess up your holiday plans. (In fairness, they can at least get a job!)
nandemo 13y ago
I think part of the reason is: (a) Parents will immigrate with their kids knowing that they won't have legal residence status. I know some immigrants are escaping dire poverty or persecution, but not all. So I think parents have some responsibility here. (b) Plus, the US is relatively lax in enforcing immigration laws. People do (a) and get work, send their kids to school, buy a house, etc. There's no way you could get away with that in (say) Japan.
coldtea 13y ago
How about this: 300 million people are brought (illegally) to the country at 7. At 20, should they have a legal right to be there?
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > At 20, should they have a legal right to be there? Absolutely. After all, if 13 years is not enough to locate and deport them those people have a right to a continued existence in the place where they are now completely at home and integrated. Anything else would be inhuman.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    So deporting them (including being real hard on them) before those 13 years is OK, but suddenly 13 years (or 12 or 10) is some kind of limit after which they can impose themselves upon a sovereign country? Especially since the fail to deport is not because of lack of want or try, but because of evading checks etc? I'm all for granting asylum for legitimate cases in small numbers, but "came here because my country sucks" or multi-million people migration is not good if the local population doesn't want it. Actually, with regard to results, it's not extremely different to an invansion and can even help to prepare one later on (such tactics of getting people to mass migrate to another country/region, have been historically used to disrupt population dynamics there and let a third party to have leverage on the original local populations, e.g by China in Tibet and numerous others, even back to the Roman empire). Some of those things might not apply when talking about small percentages of immigrants or the US (who as a great power has little to fear seriously), but are legitimate concerns for smaller nations.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      I personally would put that limit a lot lower, more like 2 years or however long it could reasonably take to process an asylum request if you subscribe to this concept at all (which I really don't, I'm all for completely open borders or disbanding them altogether, it's the only way citizens of various countries get to vote with their feet).
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >it's the only way citizens of various countries get to vote with their feet You're not supposed to "vote with your feet". That's called "fleeing" and those who do it are "cowards". You're supposed to fight and make your country better, including bringing down an oppresive regime etc. For ages, even women and children have fought for freedom and for making the world a better place, including risking their lives. Rosa Parks, for but one example, didn't "vote with their feet". As for "completely open borders" that either happens when all the earth is a united country (where everybody can vote for the general leadership), or is just crazy talk when there are sovereign countries that are more and less powerful.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Kudzu_Bob 13y ago
If a person is raised since age seven in a house his parents bought with money that they embezzled, and then at age thirty he inherits the house from them, must he give it up once the source of the family's ill-gotten gains is discovered by the authorities?
- lmm 13y ago
  No? Are you saying that legally he would have to?
  - Kudzu_Bob 13y ago
    If I rob your girlfriend of a nice ring she's wearing so that I can give it to my girlfriend, does my girlfriend legally get to keep the ring once the crime becomes known, just because the theft took place years ago?
    - lmm 13y ago
      If we didn't file charges within thirty years, yes, IIRC.
      - Kudzu_Bob 13y ago
        The amount of time being discussed here is well under thirty years. In any event, property stolen during the Second World War is still being returned forcibly to its original owners.
mason240 13y ago
Which is the same thing that would happen in Canada or any European country.

Wow, so a person is brought into a country a 7. At 20, she still has no legal right to be there, and if caught, can be sent back to "her" country? That's effed up.

tehwalrus 13y ago

similar things for some Britons, mostly of Jamaican origin. If they arrived as children after some date in the 80s, they're in the country "legally", but they're not citizens. They're not allowed to get a passport, and if they leave the country there's no guarantee they'll be allowed back in. Often, they don't realise this until they're ~20, whenever they first apply for a passport - and they have to go through a lengthy process of applying for citizenship, which can take up to 5 years (or longer, what was that backlog?) and still might not be successful. Which can kind of mess up your holiday plans. (In fairness, they can at least get a job!)

nandemo 13y ago

I think part of the reason is: (a) Parents will immigrate with their kids knowing that they won't have legal residence status. I know some immigrants are escaping dire poverty or persecution, but not all. So I think parents have some responsibility here. (b) Plus, the US is relatively lax in enforcing immigration laws. People do (a) and get work, send their kids to school, buy a house, etc. There's no way you could get away with that in (say) Japan.

coldtea 13y ago

How about this: 300 million people are brought (illegally) to the country at 7. At 20, should they have a legal right to be there?

jacquesm 13y ago
> At 20, should they have a legal right to be there? Absolutely. After all, if 13 years is not enough to locate and deport them those people have a right to a continued existence in the place where they are now completely at home and integrated. Anything else would be inhuman.
- coldtea 13y ago
  So deporting them (including being real hard on them) before those 13 years is OK, but suddenly 13 years (or 12 or 10) is some kind of limit after which they can impose themselves upon a sovereign country? Especially since the fail to deport is not because of lack of want or try, but because of evading checks etc? I'm all for granting asylum for legitimate cases in small numbers, but "came here because my country sucks" or multi-million people migration is not good if the local population doesn't want it. Actually, with regard to results, it's not extremely different to an invansion and can even help to prepare one later on (such tactics of getting people to mass migrate to another country/region, have been historically used to disrupt population dynamics there and let a third party to have leverage on the original local populations, e.g by China in Tibet and numerous others, even back to the Roman empire). Some of those things might not apply when talking about small percentages of immigrants or the US (who as a great power has little to fear seriously), but are legitimate concerns for smaller nations.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    I personally would put that limit a lot lower, more like 2 years or however long it could reasonably take to process an asylum request if you subscribe to this concept at all (which I really don't, I'm all for completely open borders or disbanding them altogether, it's the only way citizens of various countries get to vote with their feet).
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >it's the only way citizens of various countries get to vote with their feet You're not supposed to "vote with your feet". That's called "fleeing" and those who do it are "cowards". You're supposed to fight and make your country better, including bringing down an oppresive regime etc. For ages, even women and children have fought for freedom and for making the world a better place, including risking their lives. Rosa Parks, for but one example, didn't "vote with their feet". As for "completely open borders" that either happens when all the earth is a united country (where everybody can vote for the general leadership), or is just crazy talk when there are sovereign countries that are more and less powerful.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Kudzu_Bob 13y ago

If a person is raised since age seven in a house his parents bought with money that they embezzled, and then at age thirty he inherits the house from them, must he give it up once the source of the family's ill-gotten gains is discovered by the authorities?

lmm 13y ago
No? Are you saying that legally he would have to?
- Kudzu_Bob 13y ago
  If I rob your girlfriend of a nice ring she's wearing so that I can give it to my girlfriend, does my girlfriend legally get to keep the ring once the crime becomes known, just because the theft took place years ago?
  - lmm 13y ago
    If we didn't file charges within thirty years, yes, IIRC.
    - Kudzu_Bob 13y ago
      The amount of time being discussed here is well under thirty years. In any event, property stolen during the Second World War is still being returned forcibly to its original owners.

mason240 13y ago

Which is the same thing that would happen in Canada or any European country.