Immigation laws are already in place

[realFedUp]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Immigration

snip

Congress has total and complete authority over immigration. Power of the President is limited to policies on refugees. Unless the issue concerns the rights of aliens to constitutional protections the courts have rarely intruded.

The need to stem illegal immigration prompted Congress to enact the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) (http://www.usda.gov/oce/oce/labor-affairs/ircasumm.htm) of 1986. The IRCA toughened criminal sanctions for employers who hire illegal aliens, denied illegal aliens federally funded welfare benefits, and legitimized some aliens through an amnesty program. The Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR03737:|TOM:/bss/d099query.html) of 1986 sought to limit the practice of marrying to obtain citizenship. The Immigration Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=101-649) of 1990 thoroughly revamped the INA making allocation of visas more even among foreign nations, eliminating archaic rules, and increasing the level of worldwide immigration.

The goals in immigration policies are achieved by granting or denying visas. There are two types of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Nonimmigrant visas are primarily issued to tourists and temporary business visitors. Nonimmigrant visas are divided into eighteen main categories, and the number of visas in most categories are not limited. Only a few categories of non-immigrant visas allow their holders work in the United States. Immigrant visas permit their holders to stay in the United States permanently and ultimately to apply for citizenship. An alien who has an immigrant visa is permitted to work in the United States. Congress limits the overall number of immigrant visas, which was 675,000 in 1995. Many immigrant visas are also subject to per-country caps.

[Bridget Burke]

1. And the protests were against the Republican bill--not "immigration law"

Itself.

Yet--how many have here been frothing at the mouth, seeing the protesters as "The Enemy"?

The Democrats have a proposal, too.

[realFedUp]

4. the Sessenbrenner/Tancredo bill is abhorrent and unnecessary

[UTUSN]

2. Correcto-mundo. Glad to see some common sense on this topic.

And if only everybody knew what a boondoggle the so-called "national security" and "law enforcement" of the border is shaping up to be. Like the "war on drugs". We're talking incredible buildings, headquarters, administrative staff, horses, dune buggies, choppers, river boats, sensors, vehicles-up-the-wazoo. If Neill Shrub figures out he can expand his enterprises into this area, see it happen. Walls, construction, militarization of the border. And all of this was started under the, as you say, CURRENT, existing laws. Getting the picture?

[realFedUp]

3. yep, it's a political discussion....in an election year.

hate, divide, conquer.

[boot@9]

5. you've got that right..

we live in Texas not so far from the border. You have never seen such resources the border patrol has...any vehicle of any description they have plus heliocopters, planes...it is a regular cottage industry.

[countryjake]

6. Exactly, and any expenses will be passed down to the taxpayers...

in those areas. If they think undocumented immigrant labor is costing them dearly, wait till they see the price of maintaining that "South Wall". Republicans know a profit when they see it.

[UTUSN]

7. Kick for the next crop of "immigration" threads n/t