Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:41 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312

Let's talk about 'rational' immigration policy.


Two opposing positions are often expressed on immigration:

1) Left-wingers support "Open borders"
2) Right-wingers support "Send them back - we're full!"

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume both extremes are wrong with respect to reasonable US immigration policy. Additionally, I ask that posters accept the premise that any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country. They are here and will remain here as long as they wish as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society.

If you agree to the stipulated, please join in the discussion to explore where the real differences lie between progressives and conservatives on this issue.

What are some ideas/thoughts that you have around a 'rational' immigration policy?

What policies would you like to see implemented or dismantled?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #2  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
I don't understand your premise. Is it that we can't send anyone back, or that we can only send law-breakers back, or just the violent criminals?
  #3  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:08 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,985
Trying to see how cruel we can still be?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #4  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:13 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
We should ask new immigrants an important question, in whatever language they speak, because we're smart like that.
"Do you want to be a part of this wonderful country?"
If the answer is yes, they are welcomed in. That's what made this country awesome in the first place, and we should strive to make America great again.
  #5  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:14 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 297
The first policy would be that people stop expressing the left wing position as "Open Borders". It's grossly inaccurate and is a talking point meant to cease debate. It is like saying that the left is for confiscating guns, mandatory abortion, or teaching children to be gay in public schools. It's not true, and does not lend itself to rational debate about immigration.
  #6  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:16 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Trying to see how cruel we can still be?
Let's not derail the thread with personal jabs right at the beginning. I'm trying to understand the premise the OP asks us to accept. In one sentence it's "any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country" and in the following sentence it's "... as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society."

Does that mean if we find out they committed violent crimes in Guatemala, but have been model would-be-citizens here in the States that we can or can't send them back? What about someone who commits crimes here that don't involve violence?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-16-2019 at 02:17 PM.
  #7  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:18 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's not derail the thread with personal jabs right at the beginning.
Or with Jr. Modding

I think the intent of that was to say that the position that we are going to deport everyone in America that isn't a citizen is one of the extreme positions we are ruling out for the purpose of this discussion. We are trying to find a middle ground. I'll let the OP explain themselves, but that's how I interpreted it.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 08-16-2019 at 02:19 PM.
  #8  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's not derail the thread with personal jabs right at the beginning. I'm trying to understand the premise the OP asks us to accept. In one sentence it's "any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country" and in the following sentence it's "... as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society."

Does that mean if we find out they committed violent crimes in Guatemala, but have been model would-be-citizens here in the States that we can or can't send them back? What about someone who commits crimes here that don't involve violence?
It sounds like amnesty for now and then applying a new set of rules moving forward.

Last edited by octopus; 08-16-2019 at 02:19 PM.
  #9  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
We should ask new immigrants an important question, in whatever language they speak, because we're smart like that.
"Do you want to be a part of this wonderful country?"
If the answer is yes, they are welcomed in. ...
Even if they're violent criminals? That's 'rational' to you?
  #10  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:20 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't understand your premise. Is it that we can't send anyone back, or that we can only send law-breakers back, or just the violent criminals?
I believe the premise is "What are your ideas on this subject?"
  #11  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:21 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,737
I'm not entirely against the idea that someone who came here might have to go back to their home country. I do think that, in order to have a rational immigration policy, you can't have a blanket "if you're here you can stay here forever" policy.

I have a few key points in my policy:

1 - Strong controls over employment, minimize the opportunity for illegal immigrants to be employed. Dry up the market for illegal labor, replace it with a robust market for legal immigrant labor.

2 - Wider opportunity for legal migration to come here and work. Temporary (5-10 year) visas for people to come and work. Your visa is up? Reapply or go back to your home country. Generous renewal process, but not guaranteed. If you've spent the last 8 years not working, should I renew your work visa?

3 - Reduced chain migration. If you have a kid here you're not guaranteed to stay here forever. Even if your kid is a US citizen, you are not.

4 - Vigorous enforcement. We are making it (relatively) easy to come here and be a productive member of our society. People who go around this easy process can't stay.
  #12  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:23 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
We should ask new immigrants an important question, in whatever language they speak, because we're smart like that.
"Do you want to be a part of this wonderful country?"
If the answer is yes, they are welcomed in. That's what made this country awesome in the first place, and we should strive to make America great again.
Pretty much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
It sounds like amnesty for now and then applying a new set of rules moving forward.
Yep. I don't care all that much what they did in the past in a different place, so long as they are willing and able to behave themselves while under "our roof".

I also do not advocate sending back the "bad ones", as that just concentrates the violence in someone else's backyard. We have the room and the resources to keep them all locked up here, if they need to be segregated from the public for safety reasons.
  #13  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:23 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Or with Jr. Modding

I think the intent of that was to say that the position that we are going to deport everyone in America that isn't a citizen is one of the extreme positions we are ruling out for the purpose of this discussion. We are trying to find a middle ground. I'll let the OP explain themselves, but that's how I interpreted it.
I think this is a fair characterization.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #14  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:26 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,985

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Even if they're violent criminals? That's 'rational' to you?
This is the premise that the OP posits:
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Additionally, I ask that posters accept the premise that any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country. They are here and will remain here as long as they wish as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society.
It's pretty straightforward. No deporting anyone in the country as long as they are not both found guilty of breaking the laws applicable to all US citizens and found to be violent criminals posing a danger to society.

No more questioning this premise until and unless the OP wishes to clarify more.

[/moderating]
  #15  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:27 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Even if they're violent criminals? That's 'rational' to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yep. I don't care all that much what they did in the past in a different place, so long as they are willing and able to behave themselves while under "our roof".

I also do not advocate sending back the "bad ones", as that just concentrates the violence in someone else's backyard. We have the room and the resources to keep them all locked up here, if they need to be segregated from the public for safety reasons.
I was going to offer a more lenient position but I am willing to give those less open to immigration a concession on violent criminals.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 08-16-2019 at 02:31 PM.
  #16  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,950
nm

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-16-2019 at 02:31 PM. Reason: just saw the posts that happened while I was writing this
  #17  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:33 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,093
A middle ground would seem to me to be an expanded guest worker program by which employers can hire immigrant workers as needed, perhaps with some regulation as required to prevent exploitation, but no strict quotas. In exchange I would be willing to accept certain restrictions on the social services available to those enrolled in such a program.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 08-16-2019 at 02:36 PM.
  #18  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:36 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Additionally, I ask that posters accept the premise that any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country. They are here and will remain here as long as they wish as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society.
Clarification: Do the laws they may have broken to get into the country count against them for the purposes of deportation, Or is it "In like Flynn" once they touch U.S. soil?
  #19  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:36 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
A middle ground would seem to me to be an expanded guest worker program by which employers can hire immigrant workers as needed, with perhaps some regulation as needed to prevent exploitation, but no strict quotas. In exchange I would be willing to accept certain restrictions on the social services available to those enrolled in such a program.
You know, I considered offering this in addition to the OP but it got complicated pretty quickly with respect to policy details that involve skilled and unskilled labor forces and what guidelines to use for reasonable/market pay rates. I was leaning towards rules established in NAFTA and using the GSA schedule as a guide for various labor categories.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #20  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,872
My preferred policies that appear, by my understanding, to be well within the mainstream of public opinion:

-Legal residency for DACA/Dreamers, and a path to citizenship
-Path to citizenship for long-time undocumented residents with no criminal record (pay fine, register, etc.)
-Humane and decent treatment of migrants and those seeking refuge, including a humane court system -- no more 3 year old migrants representing themselves. Everyone gets a lawyer; everyone gets their day in court; everyone gets due process.
-Enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility; no more making cities and localities do it for them. It's reasonable for local police to try and maintain good relations with communities of migrants, even undocumented migrants, to prevent and solve crimes.
-No wall or other symbol of hatred.

That's just a start, off the top of my head.
  #21  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:39 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
The reason why the Democratic Party is often accused of supporting "open borders" is because, to the ears of many voters, the practical implications of Democratic policy sounds awfully like......open borders.

Very few Democrats say that they actually support "open borders." But when asked if the United States should have a wall on its border, most Democrats say "No." (There are already fences on some parts of the border, but many voters don't know that.) And when asked if illegal immigrants in America should be deported, most Democrats also say "No."

The result is that many voters add these two things together, and the product sounds a lot like....."open borders." To use an analogy, it would be like someone saying, "I do not support shoplifting at Walmart." But when asked, "Do you support Walmart installing an anti-shoplifting system at its stores?" this person says "No." When asked, "Should shoplifters be prosecuted?" the person also replies "No." Then these two things, combined, make it sound like the person does, in fact, condone shoplifting at Walmart, even if that's not his intention.
  #22  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:44 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The reason why the Democratic Party is often accused of supporting "open borders" is because, to the ears of many voters, the practical implications of Democratic policy sounds awfully like......open borders.
Yeah, many people are stupid, we already knew that.

Did you have anything to address the OP?

"What are some ideas/thoughts that you have around a 'rational' immigration policy?

What policies would you like to see implemented or dismantled?"
  #23  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:44 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Clarification: Do the laws they may have broken to get into the country count against them for the purposes of deportation, Or is it "In like Flynn" once they touch U.S. soil?
I honestly struggle with this. Truth is, I'm disinclined to admit violent criminals even if they have served time for their crimes. But I reserve the right to change my mind on that one to a more lenient position.

If you are discovered to be fleeing justice for a violent crime, you will be denied entry. If you lied about it and somehow managed to be admitted and were later found to have lied, it's is grounds for deportation unless there are additional mitigating factors, i.e. sufficient evidence of having turned over a new leaf, etc.

ETA: On review, this is not entirely consistent. I think I need more time to think it through.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 08-16-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #24  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:45 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 297
It's difficult to have a debate about rational immigration policy when the OP dismisses all the rational immigration policy positions that currently exist. The left is not calling for open borders, and the right is not calling for closed borders (with exceptions on both sides, but generally people in power do not hold either position). The rational position that most left leaning politicians have put forth is a path to citizenship for people that currently are not here legally, but would like to be citizens. Totally rational, totally a mainstream position. The Dream Act was a compromise, a pledge not to deport certain undocumented people, with the hope that eventually we could get them legal status. Again, totally rational, totally mainstream.

Why try to reinvent the wheel, why not just debate current actual policy?
  #25  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:46 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Anyway, to answer the OP:

  • The vast majority of refugees should be accepted, quickly, and given settlement and plenty of support - assuming that they're not terrorists, nor are they posing as refugees when they actually aren't;
  • The H1B income requirements ought to be significantly lowered - the Congressional proposed $130,000 requirement is far too high. Make it something like $45,000.
  • People coming from a list of nations designated as US-friendly (Poland, Israel, etc.) should be given higher priority over those who aren't - unless those coming from US-hostile nations are doing so because of facing persecution or whatnot at home (i.e., Christians in Iran or Saudi Arabia, Ukrainians in Russia-dominated east Ukraine)
  • Deporting all 11 million illegal immigrants would be nearly impossible. Just make them pay a heavy fine (perhaps six figures), over a long period of time, as part of a path to citizenship.
  • The border wall should be built, but with many "refuge stations" where people seeking amnesty can be given temporary shelter until their legal status is determined. Yes, these would be accused of being like concentration camps, since they're holding a lot of people, but they would be very nice and comfy places. No cages.
  • The path to U.S. citizenship should be shorter. Having to wait decades is a farce. If you make the path to legal citizenship immensely difficult, it's no surprise that people want to come in illegally. It is also unfair to those who stood in line the proper way.
  #26  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:47 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
It's difficult to have a debate about rational immigration policy when the OP dismisses all the rational immigration policy positions that currently exist. The left is not calling for open borders, and the right is not calling for closed borders (with exceptions on both sides, but generally people in power do not hold either position). The rational position that most left leaning politicians have put forth is a path to citizenship for people that currently are not here legally, but would like to be citizens. Totally rational, totally a mainstream position. The Dream Act was a compromise, a pledge not to deport certain undocumented people, with the hope that eventually we could get them legal status. Again, totally rational, totally mainstream.

Why try to reinvent the wheel, why not just debate current actual policy?
I think you missed the point of the OP. He states precisely what you just said - that the left does not stand for open borders and the right does not stand for closed borders.
  #27  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:54 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
-Enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility; no more making cities and localities do it for them. It's reasonable for local police to try and maintain good relations with communities of migrants, even undocumented migrants, to prevent and solve crimes.
This has been my position as well with respect to "Sanctuary Cities". I understand and am sympathetic to the sentiment but I think it serves to create more nationally divisive issues than it solves. There has to be one federal policy that is consistently applied in California and Mississippi.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #28  
Old 08-16-2019, 02:56 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Anyway, to answer the OP:

  • The vast majority of refugees should be accepted, quickly, and given settlement and plenty of support - assuming that they're not terrorists, nor are they posing as refugees when they actually aren't;
  • The H1B income requirements ought to be significantly lowered - the Congressional proposed $130,000 requirement is far too high. Make it something like $45,000.
  • People coming from a list of nations designated as US-friendly (Poland, Israel, etc.) should be given higher priority over those who aren't - unless those coming from US-hostile nations are doing so because of facing persecution or whatnot at home (i.e., Christians in Iran or Saudi Arabia, Ukrainians in Russia-dominated east Ukraine)
  • Deporting all 11 million illegal immigrants would be nearly impossible. Just make them pay a heavy fine (perhaps six figures), over a long period of time, as part of a path to citizenship.
  • The border wall should be built, but with many "refuge stations" where people seeking amnesty can be given temporary shelter until their legal status is determined. Yes, these would be accused of being like concentration camps, since they're holding a lot of people, but they would be very nice and comfy places. No cages.
  • The path to U.S. citizenship should be shorter. Having to wait decades is a farce. If you make the path to legal citizenship immensely difficult, it's no surprise that people want to come in illegally. It is also unfair to those who stood in line the proper way.


Too late to edit, but there ought to also be a "fast-track" in immigration and citizenship - indeed, perhaps even akin to a rubber stamp - for any immigrants who are super-educated (i.e., neurosurgeons, Fields Medal winners, scientists with vast research in some particular field) and also the super-wealthy. The latter may be a rather craven move, but if a foreign tycoon wants to come to America and fork out many millions of dollars in tax revenue to Uncle Sam as a citizen, all for the best.
  #29  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:07 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
  • The H1B income requirements ought to be significantly lowered - the Congressional proposed $130,000 requirement is far too high. Make it something like $45,000.
I think this can quickly get into parts of economics and markets discussions that are very far from immigration policy. But it's my understanding that H1B visas are granted to skilled (IT) technical labor. You don't have any worries that skilled labor from abroad will undermine domestic skilled labor rates if employers can replace one skilled US citizen for the price of 3 H1B employees? I understand outsourcing is a thing but it's a bit of a different thing than bringing in labor force at one third the price.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #30  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:21 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think you missed the point of the OP. He states precisely what you just said - that the left does not stand for open borders and the right does not stand for closed borders.
Actually, the GOP platform calls for a border wall on every mile.
Quote:
That is why we support building a wall along our southern border and protecting all ports of entry. The border wall must cover the entirety of the southern border and must be sufficient to stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Page 26 (page 33 in the page counter)
  #31  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:26 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
So, if we are going to accept as a given the amnesty of ~12 million folks then, if I were to set the rules, I'd do the following.

Economic Migration

1) Close the borders to any new immigrants until a verification and enforcement method was adopted nationwide. We can't be having these every other decade citizenship lotteries that would encourage further illegal migration.
2) Establish a limit on a per country or a per continent or per some other geographical region for yearly acceptance.
3) 1/2 of that number would be reserved for highly qualified people. The other 1/2 would be basically a lotto.
4) Might need to figure out a way to end birthright citizenship.

The number for obtaining citizenship in 2018 was ~750,000. Let's double it to 1.5 million for the total slots for economic migration.

Asylum Migration

This I think we need to handle via international treaty and agreement. Different circumstances require different solutions.

Whatever the plan or policy is ask yourself how is it going to handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change?

Last edited by octopus; 08-16-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #32  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:31 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
This has been my position as well with respect to "Sanctuary Cities". I understand and am sympathetic to the sentiment but I think it serves to create more nationally divisive issues than it solves. There has to be one federal policy that is consistently applied in California and Mississippi.
And that should be that local law enforcement enforces local laws, and the fed is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.

If we want to be consistent, then ICE should not be allowed to ask for or accept assistance from local LEOs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I think this can quickly get into parts of economics and markets discussions that are very far from immigration policy. But it's my understanding that H1B visas are granted to skilled (IT) technical labor. You don't have any worries that skilled labor from abroad will undermine domestic skilled labor rates if employers can replace one skilled US citizen for the price of 3 H1B employees? I understand outsourcing is a thing but it's a bit of a different thing than bringing in labor force at one third the price.
If that is what we have to do to prop up wages, then we should maybe look into why that is.
  #33  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:43 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And that should be that local law enforcement enforces local laws, and the fed is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.

If we want to be consistent, then ICE should not be allowed to ask for or accept assistance from local LEOs.
If we eliminate the ridiculous proposition that millions of illegal immigrants need to be ejected from the country, the job of LEO to assist in finding and capturing the handful of violent offenders identified by the FEDs should be a drop in the bucket.



Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If that is what we have to do to prop up wages, then we should maybe look into why that is.
Is that true though? Are wages being artificially propped up by H1B visa programs? Or is it more a matter of local economy and standard/cost of living? This may be worthy of a discussion of its own.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #34  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:50 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
If we eliminate the ridiculous proposition that millions of illegal immigrants need to be ejected from the country, the job of LEO to assist in finding and capturing the handful of violent offenders identified by the FEDs should be a drop in the bucket.
Local LEO should be dealing with violent offenders, whatever their immigration status.

They should not, IMHO, be used in enforcing immigration or other federal laws. This is a drain on local resources, and creates unnecessary distrust in any immigrant communities.

Quote:
Is that true though? Are wages being artificially propped up by H1B visa programs? Or is it more a matter of local economy and standard/cost of living? This may be worthy of a discussion of its own.
I don't know, I was just basing it off what you said. If an employer can get 3 employees for the price of 1, then that is a net gain for our economy. This is similar to the automation thread. If an employer makes a machine that makes one worker do the work of 3, that should not be prohibited, as it is a benefit to everyone except as a short term detriment to those whose jobs are displaced. I see little difference between cutting costs with automation or with immigration.
  #35  
Old 08-16-2019, 04:49 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
I don't favor open borders or closed borders. But I think we should have a much looser immigration system than we now have. This country was build by immigrants and made stronger by immigrants; as far as I can see, immigrants are good for America.

We should open up paths for ordinary people in Mexico and other countries to legally immigrate to the United States. I feel that the best way to fight illegal immigration is to offer an alternative of legal immigration. Not to everyone, but it should be pretty broad.

And we shouldn't base on immigration policy on what country a person is coming from. The only thing that matters if where he's going to. If somebody wants to come to America and become an American, it doesn't matter if they were born in Canada or Mexico or England or China or Nigeria.

We should enforce laws on illegal immigration at an appropriate level for the threat involved. If somebody enters America illegally and commits crimes here, then he will be arrested by the police like any other criminal and we can deport him as part of his sentence. But if somebody enters America illegally, gets a job and lives peacefully without breaking any laws, then we shouldn't waste a lot of effort into tracking him down. Use those resources to chase down more serious criminals. If we happen to catch somebody like this, treat it as a minor crime like a traffic offense; fine the guy and let him go.
  #36  
Old 08-16-2019, 04:53 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Establish a limit on a per country or a per continent or per some other geographical region for yearly acceptance.
Explain to me what standard you envision for determining which countries, continents, or geographical regions are good sources for immigrants and which countries are bad sources for immigrants.
  #37  
Old 08-16-2019, 05:01 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,494
I think all we need to do is write into law that any time an illegal immigrant is found in the country, if they are found to be employed then their employer will need to provide evidence that they carried out due diligence in attempting to confirm the person's status, or face arrest. Given that apparently illegal immigration is a matter of national security, the charge for employers who are illegally providing succor for the invaders shall be Treason.
  #38  
Old 08-16-2019, 05:07 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Explain to me what standard you envision for determining which countries, continents, or geographical regions are good sources for immigrants and which countries are bad sources for immigrants.
Did I say that? Did I imply that?
  #39  
Old 08-16-2019, 05:26 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,116
Quote:
I ask that posters accept the premise that any person currently not a US citizen (regardless of residency status) is not going to be forcibly removed from this country. They are here and will remain here as long as they wish as long as they obey all laws applicable to all US citizens and are not found to be violent criminals who pose a danger to society.
Is this a one-shot, or an ongoing policy? That is, from now on anyone who can get across the border can stay permanently, or amnesty and then treat future illegal immigrants differently?

Regards,
Shodan
  #40  
Old 08-16-2019, 05:33 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,474
We should totally revamp the legal economic immigration process. We should severely curtail any guest worker program so that they are only used for very specialized and highly paid skillsets. If other people want to come over to work temporarily, we should let them as long as there are enough employers, but only on condition that they do become citizens and remain here, rather than going back with their money and skills.

With regards to refugees, I'm, not sure what to do. Maybe we should have a mega-powered UNHCR which would determine how many worldwide refugees there are and allocates a refugee quota based on GDP and population and countries that do not meet this can subsidize the countries that do. I'd bet America would fall behind on this, but then we could basically pay off southeast Europe for being swamped with refugees and thus hopefully reduce the resentment of the refugees there.
  #41  
Old 08-16-2019, 06:06 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Whatever the plan or policy is ask yourself how is it going to handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change?
Well, my tentacled friend, how would your policy handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change?
  #42  
Old 08-16-2019, 06:44 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Did I say that? Did I imply that?
You said you want to establish a limit based on countries.
  #43  
Old 08-16-2019, 07:01 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 580
Immigration policy shouldn't be an isolated policy. It should be a subset of growth, economic, and humanitarian policies. The US and other first world countries need to take a look at their age demographics and ensure that the working age population is being maintained, and the ratio of retired/working age isn't becoming unsustainable. Likewise, countries need to look at how their labour market is being filled. If fundamentally important economic sectors such as agriculture or healthcare are being largely staffed by immigrants, then there needs to be easy means for employers to import legal immigrants. It's asinine to have economic sectors dependent on illegal immigrants, but not provide a stream of legal immigrants. The alternative would be to accept the inflationary hit by clearing those sectors of illegal immigrants, but very few people are openly advocating for that trade-off. The US and other first world countries also need to relieve at least some of the suffering of the victims of global conflict. It's not going to be possible to quickly resettle everyone who's been forced into a refugee camp. However, trying to improve the circumstances of people who've demonstrated that they had no resort but to flee their homelands is a worthwhile goal.

Specific to the US, something like 3% of the population is made up of illegal immigrants. The OP doesn't allow for the removal of those illegal immigrants, but we should acknowledge the scale of the problem. There needs to be some way to bring those illegal immigrants "inside" the system. Maybe something like a good-behaviour probationary amnesty? Have the illegal immigrants register as some new status of probationary immigrants, keep a crime-free record for five years, stay employed for most of that time, and they can become a fully legal permanent resident. At the same time, they're on a one strike and you're out status with regards to crime. However, that needs to be a one-time amnesty and not a repeated policy every time there's a wave of sympathy towards illegal immigrants. Which does mean that there will still need to be strong border enforcement.

One additional thought is that proximity shouldn't be considered a virtue. It's easier for Central Americans to get to the US-Mexico border and sneak across. That shouldn't be an entitlement to do so. There needs to be an intermediate stage where people who are genuinely fleeing persecution are safeguarded, but are not allowed to become economic migrants. Ideally, they would go into refugee camps in Mexico, although I'm not sure if Mexico would agree to that solution.

My other thought is that desperation is also not a virtue. There seems to be an idea that if someone has travelled a thousand miles through harsh conditions, it proves that they are worthwhile to enter the country they wish to immigrate to. Likewise, if they have suffered privation or cruelty during their journey, that makes them even more deserving. I don't think that rewarding foolhardiness is a good idea.
  #44  
Old 08-16-2019, 07:13 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Explain to me what standard you envision for determining which countries, continents, or geographical regions are good sources for immigrants and which countries are bad sources for immigrants.
There probably should be a basis for trying to ensure geographical fairness for the different types of immigration applications. That basis should also try to ensure that the opportunity to apply for different types of immigration visas is not weighted towards established groups.
  #45  
Old 08-16-2019, 07:23 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You said you want to establish a limit based on countries.
I see. What I meant was thereís be a quota based on something regional. Something like 250k/continent per year. Or maybe as a function of source country population.
  #46  
Old 08-16-2019, 08:35 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Something like 250k/continent per year.
It seems a little unbalanced to give Australia (population 31,000,000) and South America (population 422,000,000) the same quota as Asia (population 4,463,000,000) and Africa (population 1,216,000,000).

Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Or maybe as a function of source country population.
Using the examples I mentioned above, that would be something like:

China - 1,398,700
Nigeria - 20,100
Mexico - 12,700
United Kingdom - 6600
Canada - 3800

(I used 0.1% of the country's population.)
  #47  
Old 08-16-2019, 08:50 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
4) Might need to figure out a way to end birthright citizenship.
Do you mean that, if you're not a citizen, and you have a kid in the country, you don't become a citizen yourself? Or do you mean that, if you're not a citizen, and you have a kid in this country, the kid isn't a citizen?
  #48  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:06 PM
Eva Luna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago-ish, IL
Posts: 10,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post

3 - Reduced chain migration. If you have a kid here you're not guaranteed to stay here forever. Even if your kid is a US citizen, you are not.
This is already the case and has been for decades.
  #49  
Old 08-17-2019, 12:16 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Do you mean that, if you're not a citizen, and you have a kid in the country, you don't become a citizen yourself? Or do you mean that, if you're not a citizen, and you have a kid in this country, the kid isn't a citizen?
If not a citizen and have a kid then should the kid automatically be a citizen? How many countries do that?
  #50  
Old 08-17-2019, 12:17 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Well, my tentacled friend, how would your policy handle mass migration from the consequences of sea level rise and climate change?
My plan isnít complete!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017