chasovschik

let's make a deal, maybe?

DACA people are reassured and given a green card, but Congress agrees to finance the Wall in exchange.

From:

>> but Congress agrees to finance the Wall in exchange. <<

The Democrats cannot do it. And they will not. The Stupid Party will agree to something totally inconsequential instead.

>> DACA people are reassured and given a green card, <<

I am sorry, but you still do not understand one simple thing - whatever the "progressives" are given can never be taken back from them and only becomes a stepping stone for the next move. If you give the DACA users green cards, it will be automatically assumed that any current and future. underage illegals have a right to get green cards. 'Cause the left will tell you that, since these DACA ones got green cards, these other "children" will reasonably expect that they can get the legal status as well.

From:

BTW, consider this. It would be extremely easy to get student visas (F-1?) for those DREAM-fucking-ers who are now students in colleges and secondary schools. This would really be a path to the (eventual) citizenship for them, if they are oh-so-well integrated and needed for the economy. And yet this does not happen. Why? Who does the president of our university (I omit tons of words here out of an attempt to retain some civility) pledges legal help against deportation as well as direct financial assistance to these people, all out of the tuition and government money, of course, but does not want to put them on the legal student status? This is another rhetorical question of course.

From:

anna-i.livejournal.com

Well, I am curious - why not?

From:

My answer is that by going this route the left would accept the idea that legal and illegal immigrants do in fact differ in their status. They would admit that the US does have the right to control who is coming in. By accepting that these people have to follow the immigration law, they would open the door to accepting the terrrrible idea that perhaps this law applies in other cases as well, and so some deportations of illegals are not barbaric acts but are in fact a part of the normal law enforcement procedure. The left cannot do this. Their whole ideology in the respect is based on the illegals being simply "undocumented pre-citizens", not different at all from the documented actual citizens of the US.

Yes, the more cynical and practical reason for some of the left is that they actually want to maximize the percentage of the population who needs their help, the government help in the form of nonenforcement of the laws and direct financial aid. These people (illegals) rely on that aid, unlike the legal student visa holders, who have to make their way up with stills, work, diligence, and reasonable academic achievement. And so not only these cynical people get to control the distribution of the aid, but they also get the electorate who wants them in power for continued distributions. However, the decades of propaganda have produced people who REALLY believe in the ideology that was used in it, and so the REALLY refuse to see any difference between legal and illegal aliens (hence all those who tell us that they look at their own children and are terrified by the idea that they can also be deported, just like the DACA recipients).

From:

> left would accept the idea that legal and illegal immigrants do in fact differ

Spot on. And this will have far reaching consequences opening the door for acceptance of other differences.

(нецензурно) (опять нецензурно) У меня одна знакомая работает здесь уже больше 10 лет (на нормальной позиции в бизнесе), платит налоги, уже больше двух лет она не может, даже с помощью адвокатов, сдвинуть свою петицию на GC с мертвой точки. (опять нецензурно)

From:

Ну дa, a у меня есть знaкoмые, кoтoрые уже oчень мнoгo лет ждут легaльнoгo рaзрешения. A тaкже рoдственники, кoтoрым не дaют визу для элементaрнoгo приездa в гoсти. И вoт смoтртят люди нa всё этo и делaют вывoды o тoм, следует ли сoблюдaть зaкoн. Ну и плюс, кoнечнo, всё этo рaбoтaет кaк искусственный oтбoр тeх, ктo сюдa пoпaдaет.

From:

Кстати, видали это?

From:

только я хотела тебя похвалить как единственного кто с артиклями управляется ... *__*

From:

Ну тaк пoпрaвь кoнкретные oшибки, мoжнo в привaте. Скaжу спaсибo.

From:

it is not worth your time, dear. these are our usual "definite article" misuses. which i have to, if i don't pay attention. i just noted how few or none you have - compared to our other friends who like to switch to english ( and the not-so-much friends :-) - and was gonna tell you, but in this comment you were prolly in a hurry ;-)

From:

OK. Anyway, please feel free to point out my grammar errors when you see them.

From:

they are rare, George.

you'll enjoy this one:

"Grammar error" is a compound noun; "grammatical error" is a noun modified by an adjective. Both are in use, but the latter is preferred in material that can be searched online. "Grammar error" is clearly a grammatical error made by someone who is focused, but not focussed enough.

and focused is misspelled, haha.

From:

All right so we are dealing with compound nouns, noun-speak, etc... :) Anyway, thank you for pointing it out!

From:

compound nouns are germanisms. i like them. but.. they are technically erroenous some of the time, more acceptable at other times...

From:

My PhD advisor told us we should avoid them in a list of recommendations printed on a sheet of paper that was given to every one who joined the lab. :)

From:

NADO ZHE.

From:

So, should it be "Grammar nazi" or "Grammatical nazi"?

From:

touche!!!!

actually, the uze of "nazi" should have been discouraged. but.. grammar nazi is the right usage, sorry for the nazi. as in - the nazi of grammar.

grammatical nazi is laughable. BUT.... only because there is a grammar nazi already. it could have been either.

Edited Date: 2017-09-15 01:08 am (UTC)

From:

Perhaps, the grammar nazi is the only breed of nazi which existence is more or less acceptable :-)

From:

WHOSE existence.

From:

Thanks. (I've used "which" referring to "breed" - m.b. I was wrong)

From:

then - the existence of which.

From:

А правильно будет сказать "nazi breed which existence..."?

From:

no...

From:

what do you mean? the uni cannot do this. only the feds can.

From:

The uni can issue I-20, they are approved rather easily, and there is no numeric quota.

From:

i did not know that! however, can they also change a student's status??

i mean, one thing is to admit a chinese student from Hongkong, another to take an illegal and legalize them? it is not gonna sit well with the feds.

From:

In order to get a student visa, one needs to go to a consulate abroad and present their I-20. There are some cases when consulates give students a hard time, but I am not aware of anybody not getting their F-1 student visa in the end. These illegals can make an appointment with some consulate in Mexico/whatever, go there, and get their visa.

Now -- there is a clause about the so called dual intent. Somebody who came here with an immigrant intent, cannot then simply request a non-immigrant visa, as non-immigrant visas are given in the assumption that you intend to come back to your country once you are done with the studies (this is not so in case of the temporary foreign worker H-1B visas that DO allow the dual intent). However, those people were brought into the country as minors, and so their intent was not even recorded in any way. Moreover, once on a student visa, a person can acquire the intent to stay here permanently. Basically, giving the DACAers student visas would mean that they understand that they are here illegally, they would agree that they are admitted to the US temporarily, with the usual prospect of potentially deciding to stay here permanently later. They would therefore agree to leave the country if their legal status is not renewed/extended/given with a new designation.

From:

it is all tangled up. and not worth untangling. i am for amnesty with full citizenship to DACA and conditional citizenship to the other 10 million.

From:

I want to clarify something. The dual intent idea also means that they cannot apply for student visas while actually intending to stay here permanently. And it is NOT my position that there should be simply given a way to stay here forever that would look more presentable. Far from it. I believe that they should be deported together with their parents. However, I would view it as a reasonable compromise, that would would be allowed in on temporary (student and work) visas for the time being. With the understanding that they if they overstate these visas, they would no longer be "children brought in by their parents" but actual law-breaking illegals. And, of, course, with the assumption that they (or many of them) can percolate into the system and stay in here legally just like many other foreign students do.

Does it make sense?

From:

olga-mw.livejournal.com

...and upon graduation and beyond they may use OPT program that allows them to work here legally for one year, extendable up to three years, then they may do either h1b or even GC (3 years of permanency, taxes paid, no arrests).
I know people who used OPT,

From:

Yes.

From:

chasovschik.livejournal.com

Вроде что-то примерно такое и намечается, но, во-первых, вряд ли получится, а во-вторых, это уже нерелевантно все. Происходящие изменения можно притормозить, только остановив иммиграцию практически в ноль, а этого никто делать не будет. Стена эта, даже если ее построить, - пустая трата денег, хотя бы потому, что легализация миллиона дримеров означает неминуемую легализацию пяти миллионов их родственников, у которых во благовремении еще много родственников найдется.

From:

Кстaти, из их рoдственникoв, миллиoнa четыре - этo, сoбственнo, те сaмые рoдители, кoтoрые притaщили их сюдa нелегaльнo.

From:

alexanderr.livejournal.com

you lost me there bro. 1 million dreamers bring 4 million parents? how does that work. two mothers and two fathers each?

From:

I count those prospective DACAers who will sign up if this amnesty becomes a reality. All right, let's say between 2 and 4 millions (for parents only).

From:

aka-human.livejournal.com

Родные братья и сестры могут также претендовать на иммиграционный родственный статус.

From:

alexanderr.livejournal.com

безусловно, меня просто арифметика про родителей немного сбила с толку, а так-то все понятно

From:

ну а куда деть этих родственников? выслать их невозможно физически. высылать преступников, и использующих госпомощь по фальшивым бумажкам, а остальных таки легализовать.
можно как янкель предлагает легализовать гринкартой "без права на граждансво" поскольку они сознательно нелегалы.

From:

yankel.livejournal.com

Я бы еще один маленький пунктик предложил: легализованным нелегалам должно быть пожизненно запрещено голосовать на федеральных выборах. Или в принципе не давать гражданство, а давать пожизненный грин-кард. А вот их дети уже гражданство получат

From:

chasovschik.livejournal.com

Хрен ли толку, когда и нелегализованные голосуют.

From:

yankel.livejournal.com

Это - да.
Помнится, Круз в свое время подкинул такую поправочку в закон, чем вызвал гнев демократической общественности.

From:

Oпыт пoкaзывaет, чтo пoдoбные меры не рaбoтaют. Прoцесс движется, и всегдa в oдну стoрoну. Oчень скoрo нaчнутся вoпли o грaждaнaх/жителях втoрoгo сoртa и т. д.

From:

yankel.livejournal.com

Угу

From:

aka-human.livejournal.com

Aha

From: