Well, yes, but that runs into "What would a reasonable person think?"
A "reasonable person" (and I use that term with a great grain of salt, but there it is), would agree with the damn restrictions, and that the contract was implied.
Books are likely covered by the "first sale" doctrine. They are covered by copyright alone.
But, a CD, or DVD, or BD contains data in a format that you are licensed to interpret in approved players. Because, you see, it is copyright (like a book), but you need to make a copy to interpret it! Hence, the license to do so.
The problem is that most people don't realize this, or the ramifications of it.
I suppose, one could argue they've been defrauded, thinking they purchased something "like a book", when, in fact, they haven't.
(2) Yes. This is the situation today, but the paperwork is horrendous. It really is what year over year NAFTA visas were for.
(3) Yes. In fact this is currently post-9/11 law: adult non-citizens have to carry proof of status at all times. But, the catch 22 is that police can not inquire if you are a citizen or not. Still, proof of status should be required to get government services. The trouble is that large numbers of citizens don't even have birth certificates. I suppose affidavits from notaries could do in a pinch, or for some grace period.
(4) This is currently the law. In fact the law is very harsh on this: conviction of a crime with a maximum sentence of one year or more, regardless of what the actual sentence was, whether prosecution was deferred, sentence suspended, etc. is grounds for deportation. Any crime of "moral turpitude" can result in deportation regardless of sentence (public drunkenness, for example). But, the immigration department really doesn't have the resources to hunt down drunks.
But, you can't say, "For those of you hear, you're welcome to stay..." You can't offer a blanket amnesty for breaking the law. You can offer hope that they might be granted amnesty if they (a) come forward, and (b) demonstrate that they have been a net positive influence, and (c) agree to pay a fine (which, a judge may have the discretion to suspend in cases of hardship, etc.). But, the risk of deportation for coming forward must be present along with the prospect of possible amnesty.
The greater issue is the expense of deporting those who agree to it: you can't go killing people because they can't afford to leave but are willing to. However, you can enact laws that permit seizing any assets to cover somewhat more than 100% of the costs of deportation to fund the program for those who are too poor to leave.
My solution? You kill them. They are trespassers. Texas, at least allows for killing adult trespassers after dark. So, why not adult illegal immigrants any time of day?
Sure, round them up, make sure they are illegal first, and kill them.
Now, if you want to provide affirmative defenses against illegal immigration that involve voluntary disclosure, petition for amnesty, and deportation if not granted, do that. You can also grant a grace period before such a draconian law goes into effect.
Illegal immigrants are trespassers, pure and simple. They should be treated as such, and, at least in some jurisdictions it is legal to kill trespassers in very broad circumstances. So, what's the problem with the harsh penalty?
Amnesty should be granted based on whether the individual is a net benefit or a net drain on the local and wider economy, and is likely to continue to be a net benefit.
The big problem with this is determining who is here legally and not: citizens have a right to privacy, and current law forbids asking one's immigration status. That needs to change. Anyone seeking a government service, for example, should be required to prove they are entitled to it based on their legal status in the country.
To me, as a foreigner, it is simple: citizens make the rules regarding immigration, and foreigners have to follow them.
And, unfortunately being out of status even accidentally can be a big problem. Non-immigrant workers who's status depends on continued employment have to get requests to change status to B-2 postmarked the day they are laid off.
I never said I agreed with the idea, though the motive is as described.
Further, depressing wages suddenly through an influx of cheap labor is not a good idea.
Yes, artificial barriers prop up otherwise unsustainable systems, but to let them fail suddenly results in the kind of social unrest that leads to civil war.
"Certain types of foreign visitors are allowed dual intent, and other categories of visitors are not. Persons with H-1B visas (for specialty workers and their spouses and minor children with H-4 visas), K visas (for fiancees or foreign spouses of US citizens and their minor children), L visas (for corporate transferees & their spouses and minor children), and V visas (spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents) are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act.[1] Federal regulations also appear to recognize dual intent O visas (for workers who have extraordinary ability and their spouses and minor children), P visas (for athletes, artists or entertainers and their spouses and minor children), and E visas (for treaty traders or treaty investors and their spouses and minor children).[2]
Most other foreign visitors and workers, like those on H2-B worker, H-3 trainee/worker, B-1 business, B-2 tourist, VWP visitor, F-1 student, J-1 exchange visitor, M-1 student, journalism, and entertainer visas should not have immigrant intent, as discussed above. Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States (i.e., in pursuing a green card). Certain activities may appear likely to lead to U.S. permanent resident status in the belief of an experienced Government Official." [emphasis mine]
On the Affidavit of Support: once you have 40 social security credits, he's "off the hook". If you are working, you will earn them after 10 years. If he is working, he will earn them after 10 years, if he hasn't already.
Here's the kicker: once you are married ten years, his social security credits accrue to you too, even if you subsequently divorce, as long as you do not remarry.
So, be married ten years, and his obligation under the Affidavit of Support ends once you have 40 social security credits (directly, or indirectly), even if indirect credits are attributed to those earned by him after the divorce.
Don't know about instant citizenship if you are a victim of domestic violence, but yes, there are mechanisms where that will let you stay in the U.S., and presumably be able to eventually apply for citizenship if that happens.
I presume he sponsored you (or you him?). If so, he (or you) signed an "Affidavit of Support" for you (or him). If you split up, beyond spousal and child support (if any) he (or you) will be required to support you (or him) at 125% of the federal poverty level (until you both have 40 Social Security credits).
It's not a question of committing crimes. It is very easy to get accused of doing so and it being far cheaper to accept a plea bargain than to defend yourself. Some plea bargains can result in deportation.
The U.S. frowns on residents being required to respect the laws of foreign powers. They dislike dual citizenship for the same reason.
Further, if you are ever convicted of a crime, you might find yourself subject to deportation if you are not a citizen. This might be more likely than you think.
Well, no. H1B is a temporary visa. "Dual Intent" is a doctrine that has been established by immigration case law.
See, you have to intend to be in the U.S. temporarily for the job for which the H1B was granted. But, you may intend to immigrate to the U.S. permanently for a different job.
Of course, "different job" offers wide latitude. Is a raise for greater responsibility a "different" job?
The problem with what you propose is that your non-immigrant visa likely requires you to intend to leave the U.S. when it expires, and a lawful permanent resident (green card) application is evidence contrary to that, which can very quickly lead to your visa being canceled.
However, the doctrine of "dual intent" (temporarily in the U.S. for this job and permanently for a different job is well-established for H1B visas. Some have argued that it should be applied to NAFTA visas as well (TN-1 for Canadians, and TN-2 for Mexicans), but there it's more a case of getting the green card before having to renew the NAFTA visa -- an almost impossible task.
The other "trip up" question is "Are you a U.S. resident". It is a felony to lie to an immigration officer and probably the IRS as well (tax fraud) and you might not be one for immigration purposes but might very well be one for tax purposes.
Seriously, though, the idea is to filter in those who are likely to be a net benefit to those already here, and filter out the rest.
So, you don't want to displace existing workers, or depress the wage base. The sad part is that too many immigrants "cheat" giving the rest of us a bad reputation, and the process, even if you meet the criteria, is excruciatingly slow.
It used to be that to get an employment-based green card, you generally had to be here on an H1B visa, which had strict limits to how long one could stay, and the processing times for the green card could easily exceed those limits. Once your time was up you had to leave, and leaving abandoned your green card petition. There were cases of people waiting years for a green card, only to have to leave the day before their status was adjusted, abandoning everything.
One of the things Bush Jr. did was eliminate that nonsense: if you were in the final adjustment of status stage, you could extend your H1B on a year over year basis until your status was adjusted.
It was rather like winning a foot race, and losing because they took too long to give you your medal.
The other thing Bush Jr. did was make H1Bs more portable. One problem that non-immigrants faced was the propensity toward horrible working conditions because they could not get another job in their line of work if fired, and some unscrupulous employers knew this and paid slave wages. This was illegal (foreign workers had to be paid the prevailing wage so as to not depress it), but fear kept many from speaking up. With the new rules, they could just leave. The benefits to American workers were that wages were not being illegally depressed with no way to find out without much sleuthing,
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, but that runs into "What would a reasonable person think?"
A "reasonable person" (and I use that term with a great grain of salt, but there it is), would agree with the damn restrictions, and that the contract was implied.
Books are likely covered by the "first sale" doctrine. They are covered by copyright alone.
But, a CD, or DVD, or BD contains data in a format that you are licensed to interpret in approved players. Because, you see, it is copyright (like a book), but you need to make a copy to interpret it! Hence, the license to do so.
The problem is that most people don't realize this, or the ramifications of it.
I suppose, one could argue they've been defrauded, thinking they purchased something "like a book", when, in fact, they haven't.
Except you don't buy it, you buy the physical medium, and *license* the content.
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes. This is the situation today, but the paperwork is horrendous. It really is what year over year NAFTA visas were for.
(3) Yes. In fact this is currently post-9/11 law: adult non-citizens have to carry proof of status at all times. But, the catch 22 is that police can not inquire if you are a citizen or not. Still, proof of status should be required to get government services. The trouble is that large numbers of citizens don't even have birth certificates. I suppose affidavits from notaries could do in a pinch, or for some grace period.
(4) This is currently the law. In fact the law is very harsh on this: conviction of a crime with a maximum sentence of one year or more, regardless of what the actual sentence was, whether prosecution was deferred, sentence suspended, etc. is grounds for deportation. Any crime of "moral turpitude" can result in deportation regardless of sentence (public drunkenness, for example). But, the immigration department really doesn't have the resources to hunt down drunks.
But, you can't say, "For those of you hear, you're welcome to stay..." You can't offer a blanket amnesty for breaking the law. You can offer hope that they might be granted amnesty if they (a) come forward, and (b) demonstrate that they have been a net positive influence, and (c) agree to pay a fine (which, a judge may have the discretion to suspend in cases of hardship, etc.). But, the risk of deportation for coming forward must be present along with the prospect of possible amnesty.
The greater issue is the expense of deporting those who agree to it: you can't go killing people because they can't afford to leave but are willing to. However, you can enact laws that permit seizing any assets to cover somewhat more than 100% of the costs of deportation to fund the program for those who are too poor to leave.
My solution? You kill them. They are trespassers. Texas, at least allows for killing adult trespassers after dark. So, why not adult illegal immigrants any time of day?
Sure, round them up, make sure they are illegal first, and kill them.
Now, if you want to provide affirmative defenses against illegal immigration that involve voluntary disclosure, petition for amnesty, and deportation if not granted, do that. You can also grant a grace period before such a draconian law goes into effect.
Illegal immigrants are trespassers, pure and simple. They should be treated as such, and, at least in some jurisdictions it is legal to kill trespassers in very broad circumstances. So, what's the problem with the harsh penalty?
Amnesty should be granted based on whether the individual is a net benefit or a net drain on the local and wider economy, and is likely to continue to be a net benefit.
The big problem with this is determining who is here legally and not: citizens have a right to privacy, and current law forbids asking one's immigration status. That needs to change. Anyone seeking a government service, for example, should be required to prove they are entitled to it based on their legal status in the country.
To me, as a foreigner, it is simple: citizens make the rules regarding immigration, and foreigners have to follow them.
And, unfortunately being out of status even accidentally can be a big problem. Non-immigrant workers who's status depends on continued employment have to get requests to change status to B-2 postmarked the day they are laid off.
They did this, and all it produced was another wave of illegals... more this time, waiting, no doubt for "their" amnesty.
Having immigrated legally, I have no sympathy for illegals.
Quit supporting criminals, coward. There are plenty of out of work Americans that would love such manual labor jobs right now.
I rather like the Constitution and Bill of Rights, myself.
Governments? They can be replaced.
You will have to sign an Affidavit of Support. If she divorces you, you will have to continue to support her to 125% of the federal poverty level.
I never said I agreed with the idea, though the motive is as described.
Further, depressing wages suddenly through an influx of cheap labor is not a good idea.
Yes, artificial barriers prop up otherwise unsustainable systems, but to let them fail suddenly results in the kind of social unrest that leads to civil war.
I lived in Texas while a legal non-immigrant on a work visa.
I had no trouble, and was missed when I had to return to Canada because of a lay off.
Maybe it was my NRA membership.
Anchor babies count squat toward one's own immigration/citizenship chances.
I immigrated from Canada to the U.S. for lower taxes and better health care.
"Certain types of foreign visitors are allowed dual intent, and other categories of visitors are not. Persons with H-1B visas (for specialty workers and their spouses and minor children with H-4 visas), K visas (for fiancees or foreign spouses of US citizens and their minor children), L visas (for corporate transferees & their spouses and minor children), and V visas (spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents) are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act.[1] Federal regulations also appear to recognize dual intent O visas (for workers who have extraordinary ability and their spouses and minor children), P visas (for athletes, artists or entertainers and their spouses and minor children), and E visas (for treaty traders or treaty investors and their spouses and minor children).[2]
Most other foreign visitors and workers, like those on H2-B worker, H-3 trainee/worker, B-1 business, B-2 tourist, VWP visitor, F-1 student, J-1 exchange visitor, M-1 student, journalism, and entertainer visas should not have immigrant intent, as discussed above. Such visa holders can be denied admission if the consular or port official reasonably believes that they have interest in permanently remaining in the United States (i.e., in pursuing a green card). Certain activities may appear likely to lead to U.S. permanent resident status in the belief of an experienced Government Official." [emphasis mine]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_intent
On the Affidavit of Support: once you have 40 social security credits, he's "off the hook". If you are working, you will earn them after 10 years. If he is working, he will earn them after 10 years, if he hasn't already.
Here's the kicker: once you are married ten years, his social security credits accrue to you too, even if you subsequently divorce, as long as you do not remarry.
So, be married ten years, and his obligation under the Affidavit of Support ends once you have 40 social security credits (directly, or indirectly), even if indirect credits are attributed to those earned by him after the divorce.
It's one of those weird arcane things.
Don't know about instant citizenship if you are a victim of domestic violence, but yes, there are mechanisms where that will let you stay in the U.S., and presumably be able to eventually apply for citizenship if that happens.
I presume he sponsored you (or you him?). If so, he (or you) signed an "Affidavit of Support" for you (or him). If you split up, beyond spousal and child support (if any) he (or you) will be required to support you (or him) at 125% of the federal poverty level (until you both have 40 Social Security credits).
It's not a question of committing crimes. It is very easy to get accused of doing so and it being far cheaper to accept a plea bargain than to defend yourself. Some plea bargains can result in deportation.
The U.S. frowns on residents being required to respect the laws of foreign powers. They dislike dual citizenship for the same reason.
Further, if you are ever convicted of a crime, you might find yourself subject to deportation if you are not a citizen. This might be more likely than you think.
I got my green card in 2006. Until then I was a "non-resident" for immigration purposes (but, of course, a resident for tax purposes).
"The job spec was unfillable..."
While true, the job requirements for an H1B "job" are not permitted to be artificially tailored to the applicant.
Yeah, that pisses off a lot of us immigrants that came in through the front door as well.
Also, the point was that you can not apply for citizenship as a non-immigrant. You can certainly apply to immigrate as one.
Well, no. H1B is a temporary visa. "Dual Intent" is a doctrine that has been established by immigration case law.
See, you have to intend to be in the U.S. temporarily for the job for which the H1B was granted. But, you may intend to immigrate to the U.S. permanently for a different job.
Of course, "different job" offers wide latitude. Is a raise for greater responsibility a "different" job?
The problem with what you propose is that your non-immigrant visa likely requires you to intend to leave the U.S. when it expires, and a lawful permanent resident (green card) application is evidence contrary to that, which can very quickly lead to your visa being canceled.
However, the doctrine of "dual intent" (temporarily in the U.S. for this job and permanently for a different job is well-established for H1B visas. Some have argued that it should be applied to NAFTA visas as well (TN-1 for Canadians, and TN-2 for Mexicans), but there it's more a case of getting the green card before having to renew the NAFTA visa -- an almost impossible task.
The other "trip up" question is "Are you a U.S. resident". It is a felony to lie to an immigration officer and probably the IRS as well (tax fraud) and you might not be one for immigration purposes but might very well be one for tax purposes.
LOL.
Seriously, though, the idea is to filter in those who are likely to be a net benefit to those already here, and filter out the rest.
So, you don't want to displace existing workers, or depress the wage base. The sad part is that too many immigrants "cheat" giving the rest of us a bad reputation, and the process, even if you meet the criteria, is excruciatingly slow.
It used to be that to get an employment-based green card, you generally had to be here on an H1B visa, which had strict limits to how long one could stay, and the processing times for the green card could easily exceed those limits. Once your time was up you had to leave, and leaving abandoned your green card petition. There were cases of people waiting years for a green card, only to have to leave the day before their status was adjusted, abandoning everything.
One of the things Bush Jr. did was eliminate that nonsense: if you were in the final adjustment of status stage, you could extend your H1B on a year over year basis until your status was adjusted.
It was rather like winning a foot race, and losing because they took too long to give you your medal.
The other thing Bush Jr. did was make H1Bs more portable. One problem that non-immigrants faced was the propensity toward horrible working conditions because they could not get another job in their line of work if fired, and some unscrupulous employers knew this and paid slave wages. This was illegal (foreign workers had to be paid the prevailing wage so as to not depress it), but fear kept many from speaking up. With the new rules, they could just leave. The benefits to American workers were that wages were not being illegally depressed with no way to find out without much sleuthing,