Redstate

Posted at 2:14pm on Jun. 27, 2007 White House Response To Bluey

By krushtonwhitehouse

[promoted by haystack...we welcome the ongoing dialog with the White House on this issue...wherever any of us might come down on it...play nice folks...]

As always, we're glad to have the chance to respond here at RedState, this time regarding Mr. Bluey's post yesterday.

More below the fold...

Posted in Immigration — Comments (87) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:56pm on Jun. 13, 2007 White House Response To Bluey On Enforcing Current Laws

By krushtonwhitehouse

The White House is happy for the opportunity to respond to Bluey’s post last night in which he asks “Why doesn't the administration use the laws already on the books to clean up the border?”

Here are just a FEW of the many border and interior enforcement items RedState readers might be interested in:

Formal removals (in which a judge orders an alien to leave) have increased from 178,000 in FY 2001 to 232,000 In FY 2006, a 30% increase. In FY 2006, approximately 900,000 Mexicans were “voluntarily removed,” in other words they were intercepted at the border and returned to Mexico the same day.

Read on . . .

Posted in Immigration — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:25pm on Jun. 7, 2007 Are Convicted Criminals And Terrorists Barred? Yes!

By krushtonwhitehouse

-Promoted from the diaries by Jeff

Wanted to take a moment to clarify what is in the bill regarding the Z program and convicted criminals and terrorists. The contention that they are not barred from the Z program has been making the rounds today.

The range of crimes that disqualify applicants from the Z program extends into the thousands and includes any felony (murder), any three misdemeanors (theft, although felony theft would be covered in the prior category), any aggravated felony (rape), any serious criminal offense (assault), most crimes involving moral turpitude (fraud), and any violation of a law relating to a controlled substance. These bars are not waivable by anyone -- period. You can view the bill language on this provision on pages 282 to 284.

Terrorists are not eligible for the legalization program. Period. And this bar is not waivable by anyone. Period. Again, this is spelled out on pages 282 and 284 of the bill, without ambiguity or room for debate. The bill also contains a whole host of new tools to fight criminal, dangerous, and terrorist aliens.

Thanks,
Kerrie Rushton
White House Office of Strategic Initiatives

Posted in Immigration | White House — Comments (85) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:15pm on May 21, 2007 White House Response To Bluey's 5/20 Post

By krushtonwhitehouse

A few thoughts on Bluey's post yesterday on our Fact/Myth:

Z visas remaining indefinitely – see our post yesterday. A Z visa holder wishing to remain in the country under their Z visa indefinitely would still have to renew their visa every four years. Renewing the Z visa means more processing fees (again, up to $1,500 each time). The financial liability for these Zs starts to add up very quickly if holders choose to remain in this status instead of pursuing Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status.

Miles of Fence. The bill’s triggers mandate 370 miles of fence must be built before the temporary worker and Z visa components take effect. This does not mean that more fence will not be built.

Read on . . . .

Posted in Immigration | White House — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:42pm on May 20, 2007 White House Response To Erick's Posts.

By krushtonwhitehouse

Promoted from the Diaries - Krempasky. Many thanks to the White House for taking the time to join the discussion here.

RedState Readers,

The White House is glad for the opportunity to respond to two posts here at RedState. The first, Erick's post referencing Tony Snow and talking about Z visa fines. The second, a post linking to Kate O'Beirne at National Review.

Regarding the first post:

We're glad to see the update noting the post was incorrect, but thought it might be helpful to elaborate more. Z visa applicants will have to pay a $1,000 fine for heads of households and an additional $500 fine for each dependent (spouses and children). There will also be a processing fee of up to $1,500 and a $500 state impact assistance fee. So the $1,000 is not really the cost of the visa as your correction suggest, it's a fine. The processing fee will take care of the costs of the visa. Of course, the fines and fees are not the only hurdle -- applicants must be employed, pass background checks, etc. to get their Z visas.

Read on . . .

Posted in Immigration — Comments (162) / Email this page » / Read More »