No, no, not the Iraq surge ... rather, the citizenship surge.
Not surprisingly, this past summers debate on how to deal with immigrants, legal or otherwise, inspired a number of individuals to turn in their citizenship applications in hopes of
becoming citizens in time to vote in next year's elections. However, despite a large increase in the application fees, an increase allegedly intended to help develop the necessary infrastructure to speed the process along, new applicants are being told the backlog for processing is now reaching 16 to 18 months.
For those who are to lazy to count, the elections are less than 12 months away.
As the linked piece notes, this isn't a backlog due to visa limits or any other issue. This is simply a matter of not having enough people on hand to deal with the influx. Once again our "corporate administration" proves its core competency is incompetence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
It's really a shame, but the problem is not new.
What's really sickening is all the whinning by the illegals and their supporters that THEY should receive instant legalization. What a crock! They need to go home and get in line BEHIND everyone who is doing it the right way.
Hmmm ... I don't recall anyone seriously arguing in favor of "instant legalization".
I agree the problem with the backlog isn't new, but the degree of the backlog is, and it's indicative of larger problems in not anticipating issues which could be foreseen. It's another aspect of the same issue I had some personal experience with when I had to renew my passport early this year.
"Hmmm ... I don't recall anyone seriously arguing in favor of "instant legalization"."
You must not have been paying attention. That's exactly what the Shamnesty Bill would have done.
...BTW, what the heck does a "software researcher" do? Sounds like a gubmint title for systems analyst.
CW,
My bad ... I was thinking you were referring to citizenship, since that was what my original post discussed.
You are correct that section six of the bill (TOC here) discusses parameters under which immigrants here illegally would have their status changed to legal resident alien if they met the criteria, and I can see that described as "instant legalization".
It certainly is not the same as citizenship, however.
No, it's not the same, but the proposed bill holes big enough to drive a truck through and I could not support that.
Now.. what does a "software researcher" do? Is it a secret?
I research software, of course. :)
Actually, the details of my job really are secret. It does involve software design and architecture for R&D projects for the government.
is playing XBOX considered researching software?
How's HALO 3? Microsoft is making me buy a 360 to get it...
I wish! Sadly, no ...
Thank you. I appreciate your willingness to explain that to me.
I want the border/immigration problem fixed; but I am adamant that the border needs to be secured first. I hope you can appreciate my reasoning that although you may have some expectation on what the results will be.. for any system you need to "secure" the input, before you process the data if you want valid output.
And, of course, :) I have some definite, and perhaps not too flexible, ideas on the decisions made in processing the "data".
Good design - that's all I'm asking for.
I have no problem with better border securitym and I would like to see better enforcement of existing law for employers as well.
To stretch your analogy til it cries, though, the problem is we already have a lot of data that has leaked into the system that we have to find some good means to deal with it. Legacy data as it were ... and I don't think throwing it out is the best option.
A significant amount of that legacy data is garbage; we both know that.
The point is - you need to secure the entry FIRST, so no more data leaks in. Do you agree with that?
Even in a computer system it's entirely possible, common even, to work on multiple issues in parallel, and moreso in real life.
You are setting up an unnecessary, and false, dichotomy here. If I _had_ to choose one or the other matter to address first, and complete it before moving on to the next step, then yes, I would agree securing the border would take precedence.
However, properly securing our borders (which I agree needs to be addressed) is _not_ a necessary precursor to finding some rational means of dealing with those already extent within our borders. For some, such as yourself, it may be desirable, but no actual dependency exists.
However, it turns out forcing the security matter to be resolved first and dealing with matters sequentially may be more feasible politically, and that's part of living in the real world. I'm fine with addressing the security issue first if it makes people more comfortable with then addressing other aspect of the problem later ... but frankly, I have my doubts it will lead to that.
I honestly think the rest would be addressed, Americans are not heartless people.
---
In the real world, this is what happened early last year:
As soon as it was announced that immigration reform was going to be addressed there was a prolonged surge of those crossing the border, hoping to beat whatever deadline was imposed. That only compounded the problem, imo.
It will become a never ending process of processing people until the border is secured. Expensive and unnecessary.
And, yes.. I do understand working on multiple issues in parallel, particularly when it comes to sw. I have a thorough understanding of the problems and unnecessary expenses that arise when someone produces output before they've determined the input.
I've actually seen that happen - the person wanted to show the requestor "something". It became a rather ugly scenario. ..and that's what I see happening when congress tries to address everything at once.
There is merit to developing things one "module" at a time. It sure makes it a lot easier to spot problems and fix them.
My experience says that in the long run, it's cheaper, too.
I suspect you and I could go around in circles over this - perhaps we should just agree to disagree. :)
I, too, want employer sanctions enforced, for more than one reason.
However, as I see it, the root cause doesn't really lie in this country, but in Mexico. Reform is desperately needed there, but there's not much we can do about it. An added benefit of securing the border, imo, would be to put more pressure on THAT government to make some changes.
...plus it would be good for the environment... :-)) Have you visited the San Pedro lately? There are areas that have been thoroughly trashed. That may not be important to some, but it bothers me a great deal.
I won't keep bothering you - I will keep reading your blog.
"There is merit to developing things one "module" at a time. It sure makes it a lot easier to spot problems and fix them.
My experience says that in the long run, it's cheaper, too."
I am sure, in terms of software, we both agree here ... obviously you try to create software in modules for a reason. The issue is whether or not there was a dependency between the modules in our analogy (preventing parallel development) or not. I say not, you say there was.
There are many benefits to securing the border, and I make no argument against it. I'm entirely in favor of it. It's just that while I DO see it as being necessary, I don't see other issues as having to wait to be addressed until it's done first.
Regarding whether or not those other issues ever actually get addressed, I do hope you are correct and I am overly pessimistic.
I look forward to reading more from you, I've enjoyed the exchange.
Post a Comment