Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2018, 5:36 pm

freeman3 wrote:It's just not that simple. To be draconian enough to prevent any illegal aliens coming and some of them doing harm...you're going to have be ruthless with a lot of people like RJ describes and, moreover, have a hostility towards immigrants that's going to take away the immigrants winning Nobel prizes and starting Fortune 500 companies. Hostility towards illegal aliens...eventually spills over into hostility towards legal immigrants. A legal Mexican immigrant comes from the same culture that an illegal Mexican comes from. The Trump reform spelled that out. It did not matter whether people from certain countries were legal or not...we don't want them.


Folderol.

It’s not “hostility” to enforce immigration laws. You *saying* it’s “hostility” doesn’t make it so.

The whole premise of White Nationslism is that these immigrants do not have our values and are hurting our country. It doesn't matter if they are legal or not. And we have to stop the influx of immigrants because they are changing America for the worse.


Is that true? I am not an expert on White Nationalism. Maybe you are? But, it seems to be that they would want to remove all non-whites, regardless of citizenship.

It’s sad that you leap to the “racism” card.

RJ seems to clearly favor legal immigration but also sees negatives of illegal immigration. If everyone thought like he does I don't think there would be an issue of fixing illegal immigration problems. Because we know his heart is in the right place. But that's not true with a lot of the anti-immigration crowd.


Find some anti-immigrant person here. It ain’t me. I like immigration. I just like the rule of law.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3031
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Feb 2018, 8:47 pm

Oh Gosh...I am not saying anyone is racist. To identify with a particular group is wired into us. Stereotyping is essentially a survival mechanism. The best we can do is not consciously feel we are superior to other groups, to try and treat people as individuals, and reflect upon when likes/dislikes/stereotypes of other groups when those things sort of come up from below and try and disregard them. But we're going to be more comfortable with people that are more similar to us...that's reality. It gets to be that racism is being used as a sword by anti-immigration groups when all we're pointing out is that the emotional intensity of the immigration debate almost certainly means there is some in-groupism going on here. (That and we elected a president who has said some pretty racist-sounding things.)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 10:02 am

fate
Find some anti-immigrant person here. It ain’t me. I like immigration. I just like the rule of law.


But do you want to change the laws?
Most Americans do. Its just your Congress that really doesn't want to do anything that reflects what Americans want.

Virtually every recent poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that illegal immigrants currently living in the United States should be given a chance to remain here legally. Fifty-nine percent in a new Quinnipiac poll of registered voters said they should be allowed to stay in the United States and to eventually apply for citizenship, and 9 percent said they should be allowed to stay but not to apply for citizenship. A quarter said they should be required to leave. In the exit polls in 2012 and 2016, 65 and 70 percent, respectively, of voters checked a box saying “illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status.” Twenty-eight and 25 percent, respectively, said they should be “deported to the country they came from.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmars ... 2aa2f624e6

When government isn't responsive to the will of the people, then some will use the complexities and vagaries of the American system of governance to enforce their own will. That's what the phenomenon of Sanctuary cities and local law resisting ICE is all about.

BTW: I read the GAO report that RayJay offered. It's methodology is exceptionally convoluted. Whenever databases are related, in order to extrapolate information that isn't specifically noted in either - then I think you are inferring a confidence that shouldn't be. Especially when the source data technique varies at least a little in almost every State. We never used those techniques in advertising even when looking for marketing data on products..
Be that as it may, is it reasonable that the incidence of murder charges be 5 to 8% for illegal aliens held in jails everywhere but New York State. where for some reason the number jumps to 27%?
When you see a data point like that jump out, without any explanation provided, you have to wonder about the reliability of the methodology... (They also seem to conflate "murder charges"(jail population data ) with "Murder convictions" ... (published data)
Be that what is may, considering that this research document has sunk into obscurity, and isn't referenced every day - considering its startling conclusions - it is probable that no one really trusts it...
On the other hand we do have daa that indicates the opposite of what the GAO report provided ...

There is no correlation between increased immigration and crime. or between illegal immigration and crime.

Nationally, from 1990 to 2010, the violent crime rate declined almost 45 percent and the property crime rate fell 42 percent, even as the number of undocumented immigrants more than tripled. According to the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates from 1999 to 2006 were lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates. During that period, the total crime rate fell 14 percent in the 19 top immigration states, compared to only 7 percent in the other 31. Truth is, foreign-born people in America—whether they are naturalized citizens, permanent residents or undocumented—are incarcerated at a much lower rate than native-born Americans, according to the National Institute of Corrections.
”… violence tended to decrease as metropolitan areas experienced gains in their concentration of immigrants..”


None of the granular debate really matters anyway, if politicians in Washington don't represent the will of the people through their legislation...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 11:47 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Find some anti-immigrant person here. It ain’t me. I like immigration. I just like the rule of law.


But do you want to change the laws?
Most Americans do. Its just your Congress that really doesn't want to do anything that reflects what Americans want.


True, but partially true. Almost all in Congress want to do some portion of what the electorate wants. The problem is that few want to do it all at the same time.



Virtually every recent poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that illegal immigrants currently living in the United States should be given a chance to remain here legally. Fifty-nine percent in a new Quinnipiac poll of registered voters said they should be allowed to stay in the United States and to eventually apply for citizenship, and 9 percent said they should be allowed to stay but not to apply for citizenship. A quarter said they should be required to leave. In the exit polls in 2012 and 2016, 65 and 70 percent, respectively, of voters checked a box saying “illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status.” Twenty-eight and 25 percent, respectively, said they should be “deported to the country they came from.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmars ... 2aa2f624e6[/quote]

Do polls show that Americans want to have more illegal aliens flood in after DACA is approved? Do we want to continue enabling illegal labor by failing to change the requirements?

The truth is if "DACA only" were the will of the American people, the Democrats would have been swept into power across the board in 2016. Instead, they elected "Mr. Wall."

When government isn't responsive to the will of the people, then some will use the complexities and vagaries of the American system of governance to enforce their own will. That's what the phenomenon of Sanctuary cities and local law resisting ICE is all about.


It's not a "vagary." It's rebellion. The Feds ought to treat it as such. We don't have 50 immigration policies, or more. We have one.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 3:09 pm

Fate
It's not a "vagary." It's rebellion. The Feds ought to treat it as such. We don't have 50 immigration policies, or more. We have one.


Sanctuary Cities and resistance to ICE demands by local law enforcement may well be legal based upon technicalities within the complex net of Federal, State and Local laws and regulations. Its certainly unclear enough that the issues will be litigated before they are settled.
That certain jurisdictions make use of this is not "rebellion" if the law is unsettled.
In other circumstance civil disobedience has been lauded, and even raised to mythic levels. The Freedom Riders and civil rights protesters refused to follow unjust laws.
Vietnam protesters regularly refused to follow the law in their protests and draft evaders deliberately broke the law.
You have a history of rebellion against unpopular laws, regulations and policies.


Fate
True, but partially true. Almost all in Congress want to do some portion of what the electorate wants. The problem is that few want to do it all at the same time

So what?
Nothing is getting done. And nothing that remotely represents the wishes of the American people (if they are correctly reflected in polling which I think are) has been put on the table.
The problem is that you have a system that does not represent the majority. And a system where a minority can effectively stop the required process.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 4:24 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
It's not a "vagary." It's rebellion. The Feds ought to treat it as such. We don't have 50 immigration policies, or more. We have one.


Sanctuary Cities and resistance to ICE demands by local law enforcement may well be legal based upon technicalities within the complex net of Federal, State and Local laws and regulations.


Nope. They don't like Federal law, so they are ignoring it.

If a State passed a law outlawing abortion, I suppose you'd see that as a "technicality" too?

It's only one if you agree with the side trying to violate the law.

The problem is that you have a system that does not represent the majority. And a system where a minority can effectively stop the required process.


Okay, so what?

It's not like DACA is the most pressing problem the US faces.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Mar 2018, 10:35 pm

If a person comes to the USA from another country to study for a degree, and then drops out and works instead, should they lose their residency status?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 7:49 am

danivon wrote:If a person comes to the USA from another country to study for a degree, and then drops out and works instead, should they lose their residency status?


I think so ... if you have a Visa for a purpose, you would need to get a new Visa for a new purpose. Otherwise you create a lot of opportunity for abuse.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 10:07 am

Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:If a person comes to the USA from another country to study for a degree, and then drops out and works instead, should they lose their residency status?


I think so ... if you have a Visa for a purpose, you would need to get a new Visa for a new purpose. Otherwise you create a lot of opportunity for abuse.
OK.

That is what Elon Musk did. He was born in South Africa, moved to Canada and got citizenship there, and then moved to the US. He completed a couple of degrees in Pennsylvania, but left his PhD after two days to set up a company. He wasn't a US citizen until seven years later.

I assume he got the right visas, although not sure how he would have been sponsored for a work visa if it was for his own company. But I bet you are glad he wasn't deported.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 11:58 am

Yes, I'm glad he wasn't deported. What point are you trying to make?

BTW, here's not a full explanation of his visa situation.

https://www.snopes.com/elon-musk-illegal-immigrant/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 12:14 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Yes, I'm glad he wasn't deported. What point are you trying to make?

BTW, here's not a full explanation of his visa situation.

https://www.snopes.com/elon-musk-illegal-immigrant/

I never said he had breached immigration rules. I was asking what people thought should apply in a situation like his. Does that help you understand the reason for my question?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4770
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 1:16 pm

danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Yes, I'm glad he wasn't deported. What point are you trying to make?

BTW, here's not a full explanation of his visa situation.

https://www.snopes.com/elon-musk-illegal-immigrant/

I never said he had breached immigration rules. I was asking what people thought should apply in a situation like his. Does that help you understand the reason for my question?


Not fully. What is his situation, and how do you answer your own question?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 2:05 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:Yes, I'm glad he wasn't deported. What point are you trying to make?

BTW, here's not a full explanation of his visa situation.

https://www.snopes.com/elon-musk-illegal-immigrant/

I never said he had breached immigration rules. I was asking what people thought should apply in a situation like his. Does that help you understand the reason for my question?


Not fully. What is his situation, and how do you answer your own question?

The situation I described. He came to the US to study, and partway through his PhD he stopped. I don't know if he was or was not legal. And I wasn't asking if he was or wasn't legal.

My point was that if it was not Elon Musk, and we have no way of knowing who the next Elon Musk is, the rules we might think make sense are "easy".

And as he himself said about his move to the US, there are grey areas sometimes with immigration. Having documents doesn't always make it "legal". Not having documents does not always make it "illegal".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Mar 2018, 2:19 pm

danivon wrote:My point was that if it was not Elon Musk, and we have no way of knowing who the next Elon Musk is, the rules we might think make sense are "easy".

And as he himself said about his move to the US, there are grey areas sometimes with immigration. Having documents doesn't always make it "legal". Not having documents does not always make it "illegal".


Which is more likely to produce "the next Elon Musk," letting illegal aliens continue to pour into the country, or looking for those with skills, aptitude, and a strong work ethic?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10952
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Mar 2018, 9:20 am

fate
letting illegal aliens continue to pour into the country,


Would it surprise you to know that illegal immigration on the US Mexican border has been declining every year since 2000. Particularly declining since 2008.
And has reached the lowest level in 17 years?

Fate
Which is more likely to produce "the next Elon Musk," letting illegal aliens continue to pour into the country, or looking for those with skills, aptitude, and a strong work ethic
?

Who says illegal aliens don't have a strong work ethic? Who says they are coming in without skills the labor market requires?
Farming especially relies on immigrant labor: Unauthorized immigrants make up a quarter of the industry’s workforce, and authorized immigrants another 20 percent.
32% of unauthorized work in service industries. 16% in construction....
and 94% who are of age, are working...

You can't solve immigration problems when the debated is larded down with rhetoric based on false information. Or No information. As yours is Fate.
The truth is that the labor market is absorbing legal and illegal immigrants because they currently meet needs.
There is no question that solving the immigration question must include recognizing this fact, and making the path to citizenship possible for those who are residing as productive members of society.
They didn't take jobs. They were given jobs.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... ch-reality

If every employer who hires people without authentic documentation were punished, market conditions and the needs of the economy would demand a fix that included a quick path to citizenship, and no deportation except for convicted violent criminals. And the reason being that Congress is far more responsive to the needs of corporations and lobby groups than the general populace. Campaign funding having much to do with that.