Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:34 AM
Chad Sudan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 72

What if a Democratic candidate came out against undocumented immigration for economic reasons?


Imagine a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who opposed undocumented immigration on left-wing economic grounds.

This candidate would argue that it was depressing the wages of the lowest-paid workers and of legal immigrants. This candidate would vow to raid and prosecute the big businesses that employed undocumented workers.

At the same time, this Democrat would convincingly reject the wall, the caging of kids and other such performative cruelty, and white-nationalist bigotry.

Would that Democrat - all other things being equal - do better against other Democrats, or worse?
  #2  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:15 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,681
That would depend on how charismatic the candidate was, how logically sound the arguments were and, most importantly, what kind of campaign the Republicans launched against the candidate.
  #3  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:27 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,444
I think so. I disagree, obviously, but I think hatred of immigrants is very common across the political spectrum, and not just in the US, either. It's worse in other countries with ethnic national identities. But despite being built and run by immigrants, the US is falling into the same trap. I think immigration and its cousin free trade are both areas where the popular sentiment in the country leans towards the Republicans. I feel the same about guns. If democrats started supporting gun rights and tariffs, and stopped supporting immigrant rights, they'd win a lot more votes. And perhaps, like you imply, they'd curb a lot of the absurd ideas, like border walls and daycare concentration camps. Doesn't mean I'd agree with them, but it would probably be better than the situation we have now.
  #4  
Old 07-30-2019, 09:39 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,090
There are many more voters who would hear "I am fighting for you" than would hear "I am willing to say demonstrably false things to get elected." Probably five to one, at least.

But they aren't distributed evenly. So if that candidate was running for a seat in a highly educated suburb, it might be a bad decision. If they're running for a seat with a lot of white working class voters, then different story.
  #5  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:12 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Sanders tried that in 2016 and he was browbeaten back into the party line. No reason to think it would be different this time.
  #6  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:32 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,364
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of being “for” or “against” undocumented immigration.

Right now, the US is taking a criminal/military approach to the problem. Treat every undocumented immigrant like a felon. Aggressively hunt them down, lock them up and throw them out. Create a dangerous atmosphere by publicly painting all undocumented aliens as violent criminals. Combat the problem with hate and fear.

There are other solutions besides totally open borders, no matter what they say on Fox. This military/criminal approach is very expensive, it costs, IIRC, somewhere between 25K and 50K a head to incarcerate and deport an illegal immigrant.

We could help encourage stability in the home countries. This administration’s policy of trying to bring certain classes of low paying jobs back to the US is self-defeating. Simply, if you don’t want “those people” here, let them have their car battery factories and food processing plants back.

Recognize that some of these immigrants are deserving of asylum. Develop sponsorship programs. Develop a program for employers in agriculture and food processing to hire incoming immigrants. Drop the absolutely insane fiction that there are Americans clamoring to pick fruit and butcher livestock.

I’m always surprised when I hear people call the immigrant interviews to determine eligibility for asylum worthless -because “they” will just lie. I’m sure our officials have intelligence on these countries. They know who the bad actors are. They know which towns and areas are run by cartels that terrorize the residents. Make an effort to sort it out.

There are solutions out there that are built on kindness, not meanness.
  #7  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:41 AM
Drum God's Avatar
Drum God is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Central Texas, USA
Posts: 2,220
Well, first I'd like to suppose there is a Democratic candidate who does NOT oppose undocumented immigration. I believe that all of the declared presidential candidates support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Why do you think otherwise?
__________________
At the feast of ego, everyone leaves hungry.
  #8  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:59 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
The Democrat would have to walk a very fine line, between "I am against illegal immigration for economic reasons but building a wall is racism".
Quote:
This candidate would vow to raid and prosecute the big businesses that employed undocumented workers.
Only the big ones?

Raids on businesses that use illegal immigrants leads to additional problems. The first is that the reason they can get jobs is that they will work for cheap. So harvesting just got more expensive. And hiring illegal immigrants because they are cheap is a problem that crosses ideological lines.

And the implementation of such a plan presents problems as well. Suppose it works, and businesses don't want to hire illegal immigrants. Would they be allowed to ask for proof of citizenship before deciding whether to hire? The harder they try to exclude illegal immigrants, the more they expose themselves to complaints about discrimination.

Plus, you raid a company and find that there are 100 illegal immigrants working there. What do you do with them? Deport them? Put them in detention? Let them go and tell them to get in line for a green card? That takes years. What do they do in the meantime?

Regards,
Shodan
  #9  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:40 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of being “for” or “against” undocumented immigration.

Right now, the US is taking a criminal/military approach to the problem. Treat every undocumented immigrant like a felon. Aggressively hunt them down, lock them up and throw them out. Create a dangerous atmosphere by publicly painting all undocumented aliens as violent criminals. Combat the problem with hate and fear.

There are other solutions besides totally open borders, no matter what they say on Fox. This military/criminal approach is very expensive, it costs, IIRC, somewhere between 25K and 50K a head to incarcerate and deport an illegal immigrant.

We could help encourage stability in the home countries. This administration’s policy of trying to bring certain classes of low paying jobs back to the US is self-defeating. Simply, if you don’t want “those people” here, let them have their car battery factories and food processing plants back.

Recognize that some of these immigrants are deserving of asylum. Develop sponsorship programs. Develop a program for employers in agriculture and food processing to hire incoming immigrants. Drop the absolutely insane fiction that there are Americans clamoring to pick fruit and butcher livestock.

I’m always surprised when I hear people call the immigrant interviews to determine eligibility for asylum worthless -because “they” will just lie. I’m sure our officials have intelligence on these countries. They know who the bad actors are. They know which towns and areas are run by cartels that terrorize the residents. Make an effort to sort it out.

There are solutions out there that are built on kindness, not meanness.


The main obstacle to this is that many Americans don't want an approach of "we have it good, they have it bad, therefore let's make them well off so that they stop coming here." It's like a rich guy with a mansion in a poor neighborhood being asked, why don't you just buy everyone around you a nice house so they won't keep trespassing on your property?

Many Americans want a situation where the United States has it good, central America and Mexico have it bad, millions of central Americans and Mexicans want to come to the United States and cannot, because of a wall or border defenses.
  #10  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:42 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of being “for” or “against” undocumented immigration.

Right now, the US is taking a criminal/military approach to the problem. Treat every undocumented immigrant like a felon. Aggressively hunt them down, lock them up and throw them out. Create a dangerous atmosphere by publicly painting all undocumented aliens as violent criminals. Combat the problem with hate and fear.

There are other solutions besides totally open borders, no matter what they say on Fox. This military/criminal approach is very expensive, it costs, IIRC, somewhere between 25K and 50K a head to incarcerate and deport an illegal immigrant.

We could help encourage stability in the home countries. This administration’s policy of trying to bring certain classes of low paying jobs back to the US is self-defeating. Simply, if you don’t want “those people” here, let them have their car battery factories and food processing plants back.

Recognize that some of these immigrants are deserving of asylum. Develop sponsorship programs. Develop a program for employers in agriculture and food processing to hire incoming immigrants. Drop the absolutely insane fiction that there are Americans clamoring to pick fruit and butcher livestock.

I’m always surprised when I hear people call the immigrant interviews to determine eligibility for asylum worthless -because “they” will just lie. I’m sure our officials have intelligence on these countries. They know who the bad actors are. They know which towns and areas are run by cartels that terrorize the residents. Make an effort to sort it out.

There are solutions out there that are built on kindness, not meanness.
"Encourage stability in their home countries"? Short of invading their countries and installing a new government there is no way to do this. We have been trying to stabilize Latin America with varying degrees of success since ww2.

If we recognize that some of the immigrants are eligible for asylum, how do we determine this? Maybe some kind of hearing. Hearings take time, what do we do with them in the meantime? Do we let them go and hope they come back in time for the hearings, or do we keep them in custody until the hearing? If we let them go, then we have declared open borders for those willing to skip a hearing. If we keep them in custody until the hearing then we have an entire political party demagogue about concentration camps and accusing people of acting upon "hate and fear".
  #11  
Old 07-30-2019, 12:45 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
If we keep them in custody until the hearing then we have an entire political party demagogue about concentration camps and accusing people of acting upon "hate and fear".
By their own words, this administration places value on harming migrant families and making them suffer, for deterrent purposes. Is it "demagoguing" to point out that the Trump administration has declared a policy of purposefully harming migrant families and children?
  #12  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:15 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
By their own words, this administration places value on harming migrant families and making them suffer, for deterrent purposes. Is it "demagoguing" to point out that the Trump administration has declared a policy of purposefully harming migrant families and children?
Maybe the hypothetical Democrat of the OP could suggest that we change the laws and policies to automatically deport them all back to Mexico or Guatemala or wherever they came from, and let them apply for asylum or a green card from there.

Regards,
Shodan
  #13  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe the hypothetical Democrat of the OP could suggest that we change the laws and policies to automatically deport them all back to Mexico or Guatemala or wherever they came from, and let them apply for asylum or a green card from there.
Maybe! No idea what this has to do with my post, but thanks anyway!
  #14  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:30 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe the hypothetical Democrat of the OP could suggest that we change the laws and policies to automatically deport them all back to Mexico or Guatemala or wherever they came from, and let them apply for asylum or a green card from there.
If it was safe to stay "wherever they came from", then they wouldn't be needing asylum would they?
__________________
"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
  #15  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:39 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Would they be allowed to ask for proof of citizenship before deciding whether to hire?
I can only assume that you mean proof that they are authorized to work in the United States, not proof of citizenship. While it is a common misconception that you have to be a citizen in order to work, that is actually not the case, and there does seem to be an easy conflation that goes very quickly from "non-citizen" to the popular slur of "illegal".

So far as that goes, employers are required to see proof of authorization before they can hire them, why do you think that that would change?
  #16  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:48 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The main obstacle to this is that many Americans don't want an approach of "we have it good, they have it bad, therefore let's make them well off so that they stop coming here." It's like a rich guy with a mansion in a poor neighborhood being asked, why don't you just buy everyone around you a nice house so they won't keep trespassing on your property?

Many Americans want a situation where the United States has it good, central America and Mexico have it bad, millions of central Americans and Mexicans want to come to the United States and cannot, because of a wall or border defenses.
It would be more like asking the rich person living in the mansion as to why they refuse to help fund the police in the neighborhood, where the lack of law and order keeps causing people to take shelter on his property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
"Encourage stability in their home countries"? Short of invading their countries and installing a new government there is no way to do this. We have been trying to stabilize Latin America with varying degrees of success since ww2.

If we recognize that some of the immigrants are eligible for asylum, how do we determine this? Maybe some kind of hearing. Hearings take time, what do we do with them in the meantime? Do we let them go and hope they come back in time for the hearings, or do we keep them in custody until the hearing? If we let them go, then we have declared open borders for those willing to skip a hearing. If we keep them in custody until the hearing then we have an entire political party demagogue about concentration camps and accusing people of acting upon "hate and fear".
We are responsible for quite a bit of the problems they have. Between the drug trade that our drug addicted population creates demand for, the history of the region where we played imperialist over things as petty as bananas, our policy of sending people back to their countries after they have been trained and hardened in our gangs and prison system, and our current activities of cutting aid, as well as reducing trade, means that they are buried in our shit, and then we have the audacity to call them a shithole country and refuse to help to clean up or even ameliorate the effects of our mess.
  #17  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:51 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
He or she would probably do pretty well in the primary, but then lose to Hillary Clinton. He or she would then come back in 2019 to run a campaign where everyone adopted his or her positions.
  #18  
Old 07-30-2019, 01:52 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Most employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment. The INA requires employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all employees hired after November 6, 1986, by completing the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form, and reviewing documents showing the employee's identity and employment authorization. Other state and federal laws require some employers to use E-Verify. Federal law prohibits employers from rejecting valid documents or insisting on additional documents beyond what is required for the Form I-9 or E-Verify processes, based on an employee's citizenship status or national origin. For example, an employer cannot require only those who the employer perceives as "foreign" to produce specific documents, such as Permanent Resident ("green") cards or Employment Authorization Documents. Employees are allowed to choose which documents to show for employment eligibility verification from the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents. Employers should accept any unexpired document from the Lists of Acceptable Documents so long as the document appears reasonably genuine on its face and relates to the employee.

Federal law also prohibits employers from conducting the Form I-9 and E-Verify processes before the employee has accepted an offer of employment.
Cite. So, no.

Regards,
Shodan
  #19  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:03 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
If it was safe to stay "wherever they came from", then they wouldn't be needing asylum would they?
And if they didn't enter the country illegally, they wouldn't need to be in detention. So I don't see how your statement addresses the situation. Guatemala is a shithole, and Mexico is better but not by a lot. Accordingly, many people want to enter the US, both to work and to get away from their shithole country of origin. That doesn't mean the hypothetical Democrat candidate thinks they should all be allowed to stay - he or she is explicitly against illegal immigration because it depresses wages.

If they are in the country illegally, we can deport them, or put them in concentration camps detention facilities. Or let them go. Hearings take time, as puddleglum points out. Getting a green card takes years, as I point out. Letting them go doesn't address the issue - they can't work without a green card, so they can't support themselves. Do we hold them in detention? I thought that was a horrible violation of their rights.

Regards,
Shodan
  #20  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:03 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’m always surprised when I hear people call the immigrant interviews to determine eligibility for asylum worthless -because “they” will just lie. I’m sure our officials have intelligence on these countries. They know who the bad actors are. They know which towns and areas are run by cartels that terrorize the residents. Make an effort to sort it out.

There are solutions out there that are built on kindness, not meanness.
To be fair, they know that they would lie in such a situation. That's not a judgement, I would too. If the only way to secure myself and my family was to lie to some govt officials, I'd lose no sleep over it.

That they then try to make this into a moral failing of those trying to escape poverty and violence is more than a bit in bad faith.
  #21  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:23 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Sudan View Post
Would that Democrat - all other things being equal - do better against other Democrats, or worse?
I think this thread might do better on the Elections board.

His unusual stance works to his disadvantage in the primaries. His position might attract some centrists from the Republican side but that doesn't directly affect the primary vote. It will put him in the national news (more coverage = more votes). Assuming he has a sound argument, I think coverage of this issue will be a wash. Prominent Republicans will reject his argument on a national security basis, and I think many Democrats will reject his argument on humanitarian principles.

If he can make it through the primaries, then he pulls some centrist votes from the Republican side and all that hard work pays off. He might do better in the general election than a stereotypical Democratic candidate, but who knows whether that is enough to win.

While blending the economy and immigration, I have my doubts as to the extent that immigration policy affects the economic plank. It can certainly be a component, possibly a major component (doubtful), but it can't be the main component. There's too much of the U.S. economy too far removed from undocumented immigration.

Overall, if the full argument was sound I think such a position would hurt the primary vote, but help in the general election. That being said the potential advantage is not enough to build a platform, he would have to run on other issues too. If he puts too much emphasis on immigration with this sort of stance, he will manage to piss off both sides.

~Max
  #22  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:38 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Cite. So, no.

Regards,
Shodan
Once again, you are making the mistake of thinking that only citizens are authorized to work in the US. Read the first sentence of your cite again, and then tell me how it prevents an employer from asking if they are authorized to work in the United States before extending an offer of employment.

If that is illegal, you need to talk to Indeed.com, one of the biggest job placement companies in the US, as that is one of the questions that they ask and pass on the answer to.

That you are persisting in doubling down on this tells me that you seem to have only two categories that you are willing to accept, citizen or illegal immigrant. There are many other categories they can fall into.

Was that actually not a mistake on your part, that you didn't mean authorization, and that you actually meant citizenship? Do you want companies to be allowed to ask for this?
  #23  
Old 07-30-2019, 02:59 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
And if they didn't enter the country illegally, they wouldn't need to be in detention. So I don't see how your statement addresses the situation. Guatemala is a shithole, and Mexico is better but not by a lot. Accordingly, many people want to enter the US, both to work and to get away from their shithole country of origin. That doesn't mean the hypothetical Democrat candidate thinks they should all be allowed to stay - he or she is explicitly against illegal immigration because it depresses wages.

If they are in the country illegally, we can deport them, or put them in concentration camps detention facilities. Or let them go. Hearings take time, as puddleglum points out. Getting a green card takes years, as I point out. Letting them go doesn't address the issue - they can't work without a green card, so they can't support themselves. Do we hold them in detention? I thought that was a horrible violation of their rights.

Regards,
Shodan
Republican plan to prevent *any* asylum seekers to enter America.

1) Do not allow anyone to request asylum at a point of entry.
2) Since you must be in the country to request asylum, then anyone that wants to request asylum must enter the country another way.
3) Requesting asylum is not illegal, but entering without going through an official port of entry is. Therefore you have made all asylum seekers have to break the law.
4) put them all in detention because they entered illegally.
5) make conditions terrible on purpose as a deterrent for others to follow (it is documented that this is official administration policy)
6) claim that you don't have anything against asylum seekers provided they follow the law (except that you've setup the laws so that they have no choice but to break the law in order to request asylum, which isn't illegal for them to request)
7) lather, rinse repeat
8) Announce that next years target number for asylum seekers is 0. Yes zero.

How does it feel not only buying the official line of bullshit about "if they'd only follow the law", but actually defending 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; 07-30-2019 at 03:00 PM.
  #24  
Old 07-30-2019, 03:09 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Cite. So, no.

Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, Shodan, but you are totally wrong on this. You can not discriminate against prospective employees based on U.S. citizenship unless they are equally qualified. In practice asking if they are a citizen instead of "authorized to work in the U.S." is exposing yourself to a lawsuit from some disgruntled reject.

Your cite:
Most employers should not ask whether or not a job applicant is a United States citizen before making an offer of employment...
8 U.S.C. 1324b(a):
SPOILER:
  1. Prohibition of discrimination based on national origin or citizenship status

    1. General rule

      It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment-
      1. because of such individual's national origin, or
      2. in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual's citizenship status.

    2. Exceptions

      Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-
      1. a person or other entity that employs three or fewer employees,
      2. a person's or entity's discrimination because of an individual's national origin if the discrimination with respect to that person or entity and that individual is covered under section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e–2], or
      3. discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract, or which the Attorney General determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the Federal, State, or local government.

    3. "Protected individual" defined

      As used in paragraph (1), the term "protected individual" means an individual who-
      1. is a citizen or national of the United States, or
      2. is an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is granted the status of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence under section 1160(a) or 1255a(a)(1) of this title, is admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title, or is granted asylum under section 1158 of this title; but does not include (i) an alien who fails to apply for naturalization within six months of the date the alien first becomes eligible (by virtue of period of lawful permanent residence) to apply for naturalization or, if later, within six months after November 6, 1986, and (ii) an alien who has applied on a timely basis, but has not been naturalized as a citizen within 2 years after the date of the application, unless the alien can establish that the alien is actively pursuing naturalization, except that time consumed in the Service's processing the application shall not be counted toward the 2-year period.

    4. Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens

      Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to prefer to hire, recruit, or refer an individual who is a citizen or national of the United States over another individual who is an alien if the two individuals are equally qualified.

    5. Prohibition of intimidation or retaliation

      It is also an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or retaliate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured under this section or because the individual intends to file or has filed a charge or a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section. An individual so intimidated, threatened, coerced, or retaliated against shall be considered, for purposes of subsections (d) and (g), to have been discriminated against.

    6. Treatment of certain documentary practices as employment practices

      A person's or other entity's request, for purposes of satisfying the requirements of section 1324a(b) of this title, for more or different documents than are required under such section or refusing to honor documents tendered that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine shall be treated as an unfair immigration-related employment practice if made for the purpose or with the intent of discriminating against an individual in violation of paragraph (1).


~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 07-30-2019 at 03:10 PM. Reason: reject
  #25  
Old 07-30-2019, 08:43 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

We are responsible for quite a bit of the problems they have. Between the drug trade that our drug addicted population creates demand for, the history of the region where we played imperialist over things as petty as bananas, our policy of sending people back to their countries after they have been trained and hardened in our gangs and prison system, and our current activities of cutting aid, as well as reducing trade, means that they are buried in our shit, and then we have the audacity to call them a shithole country and refuse to help to clean up or even ameliorate the effects of our mess.
The richest country in Central America is Panama which we invaded and overthrew their government back in the 1989. The richest country in South America is Chile, we helped overthrow their government back in 1973. Clearly playing imperialist is not the only thing holding those countries back.
  #26  
Old 07-31-2019, 09:34 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Sanders came out in favor of stronger border enforcement in the debate. I don’t know if he means he will build a wall, send more troops, build more camps, or what. Nobody seemed to take issue with his position.

He also called for increased US intervention in Central America. I guess he thinks it will be better when he’s controlling the NGOs and military and intelligence ops down there. Again, no pushback from his challengers on this.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 07-31-2019 at 09:34 AM.
  #27  
Old 07-31-2019, 09:57 AM
Frodo's Avatar
Frodo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
We have been trying to stabilize Latin America with varying degrees of success since ww2.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

O wait, you are serious?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA
  #28  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:02 AM
Frodo's Avatar
Frodo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The richest country in Central America is Panama which we invaded and overthrew their government back in the 1989. The richest country in South America is Chile, we helped overthrow their government back in 1973. Clearly playing imperialist is not the only thing holding those countries back.
The US has also helped overthrow the government in practically all the countries in SA, some country has to be the richest and given what I previously said odds are it would be one whose government was overthrown by the US.

As for countries invaded by the US I think the one who received more invasion must be Haiti, care to share with us how is that country doing lately?.
  #29  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:23 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo View Post
The US has also helped overthrow the government in practically all the countries in SA, some country has to be the richest and given what I previously said odds are it would be one whose government was overthrown by the US.

As for countries invaded by the US I think the one who received more invasion must be Haiti, care to share with us how is that country doing lately?.
Care to ask that question again in English?
  #30  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:37 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Republican plan to prevent *any* asylum seekers to enter America.

1) Do not allow anyone to request asylum at a point of entry.
2) Since you must be in the country to request asylum, then anyone that wants to request asylum must enter the country another way.
3) Requesting asylum is not illegal, but entering without going through an official port of entry is. Therefore you have made all asylum seekers have to break the law.
4) put them all in detention because they entered illegally.
5) make conditions terrible on purpose as a deterrent for others to follow (it is documented that this is official administration policy)
6) claim that you don't have anything against asylum seekers provided they follow the law (except that you've setup the laws so that they have no choice but to break the law in order to request asylum, which isn't illegal for them to request)
7) lather, rinse repeat
8) Announce that next years target number for asylum seekers is 0. Yes zero.

How does it feel not only buying the official line of bullshit about "if they'd only follow the law", but actually defending it?
I think 1) is a strawman, and does not accurately reflect official policy. It may or may not reflect the motivation of officials who make the policy, but as I am aware the official policy is that asylum-seekers can request asylum at a port of entry. There are alleged (documented and confirmed) instances where this policy was preempted by refusing to allow people to step foot in the point-of-entry, but officially that was either an error on border patrol's part or the port was at capacity. Being at capacity isn't an excuse, legally, but if the port is actually at capacity a "check back later" might be the only practical option.

I also think 5) reflects poorly on the administration and is clearly the wrong thing to do, just like Japanese internment was the wrong thing to do.

Nevertheless, I'm having trouble connecting an economic stance against undocumented immigration with a position on asylum-seekers. It is entirely possible, nay, it is expected that our hypothetical Democrat is against undocumented immigration but still welcomes asylum-seekers. From the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Sudan View Post
At the same time, this Democrat would convincingly reject the wall, the caging of kids and other such performative cruelty...
~Max
  #31  
Old 07-31-2019, 01:40 PM
Frodo's Avatar
Frodo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Care to ask that question again in English?
I'll rephrase.
Haiti was invaded by the US at least twice, how does Haiti's economic situation compare with the rest of the region?.
  #32  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:18 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,585
I know it probably won't happen, but I would hope that the Democratic nominee can take the position that they do NOT support undocumented immigration, but simultaneously understand why it occurs and vow to treat undocumented immigrants humanely and also vow that there will be due process. And there might be opportunities for them to come back into the country legally if they can get their paperwork in order and have a verifiably clean record.
  #33  
Old 07-31-2019, 02:21 PM
Max S. is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I know it probably won't happen, but I would hope that the Democratic nominee can take the position that they do NOT support undocumented immigration, but simultaneously understand why it occurs and vow to treat undocumented immigrants humanely and also vow that there will be due process. And there might be opportunities for them to come back into the country legally if they can get their paperwork in order and have a verifiably clean record.
I wish candidates on both sides would take that exact position.

~Max
  #34  
Old 08-01-2019, 10:49 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo View Post
I'll rephrase.
Haiti was invaded by the US at least twice, how does Haiti's economic situation compare with the rest of the region?.
Poorly.
Haiti was invaded and turned out poorly, though probably no poorer than if it had not invaded.
Panama was invaded and turned out relatively well.

Whatever causes good or bad outcomes is different than being invaded by America.
  #35  
Old 08-01-2019, 11:07 AM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,519
I think the issue about undocumented immigrants hide the issue that immigrants are currently needed and practically speaking can be legal/illegal as either way they are people that we need. It would be thus easy to come off as against illegal immigration and just stand on the rule of law and say it need to be adjusted as needed. However on the issue of immigration as a whole, no I don't think one could do that on the left.

Immigrants are doing the work that needs to be done, not by replacing any American worker, but replacing the people that we as Americans are not birthing anymore as women/couples decide to either not have children or have fewer children and later in life. We decided not to have so many children, but still need these jobs done. It's a supply filling a hole in demand. The right has a solution to it, get rid of abortion and perhaps other means of birth control and force more people being born here, the left has nothing on that.
  #36  
Old 08-01-2019, 11:08 AM
Frodo's Avatar
Frodo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,274
My point is that the US has invaded and / or helped overthrow the gov of nearly every country in South and Central America.
You can't point to some country that's doing better than the others and say that it proves that US interventions cause no difference in the outcome because, of course there will be, by definition, some country that's doing better than the others at some point.
If you had a country that was not affected by the US and it was doing worse than a US invaded/affected country then you'd had a point.
As things stand you don't.
  #37  
Old 08-01-2019, 12:01 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Poorly.
Haiti was invaded and turned out poorly, though probably no poorer than if it had not invaded.
Panama was invaded and turned out relatively well.

Whatever causes good or bad outcomes is different than being invaded by America.
Because, of course, whether a country does well economically or not is always due to one single factor.
  #38  
Old 08-01-2019, 12:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Sudan View Post
...
This candidate would argue that it was depressing the wages of the lowest-paid workers and of legal immigrants. This candidate would vow to raid and prosecute the big businesses that employed undocumented workers.

At the same time, this Democrat would convincingly reject the wall, the caging of kids and other such performative cruelty, and white-nationalist bigotry.

Would that Democrat - all other things being equal - do better against other Democrats, or worse?
Well, that's not true, since mostly they work in Ag, and Americans (except those from south of the border) don't and cant work those jobs.

Well, that's for workers from South of the Border. Altho most Undocumenteds are from there, quite a few are from Asia, and they take high tech jobs, but trump isnt doing anything about them, since they aren't "bad hombres".

And you'd have to pass new laws to bust the companies, as they- by and large- dont pay them under the table and they get ID and SSNs from them so they have plausible deniability. There is no reliable test for legal vs illegal and really there can't be.
  #39  
Old 08-01-2019, 12:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...
Raids on businesses that use illegal immigrants leads to additional problems. The first is that the reason they can get jobs is that they will work for cheap. So harvesting just got more expensive. And hiring illegal immigrants because they are cheap is a problem that crosses ideological lines.
.....

Why do you think they work for cheap?
  #40  
Old 08-01-2019, 01:17 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why do you think they work for cheap?
1 reason is that they get to keep approximately 15% of their paycheck instead of giving it to Uncle Sam (possibly up to 28% if paid in cash)

But the second would be that they have no significant skill to offer other than general labor, and/or they do not speak fluent English.

I am sure there are numerous reasons. As an aside I (working in the construction industry in Texas) have seen labor costs double in the past 3 years. Some of that is attributable to the fact that the market is ripe for people to keep building and growth in the Austin area is crazy, but some is just that their labor is seen to be worth more now. Gone are the days of employing construction labor at minimum wage.
  #41  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
1 reason is that they get to keep approximately 15% of their paycheck instead of giving it to Uncle Sam (possibly up to 28% if paid in cash)

But the second would be that they have no significant skill to offer other than general labor, and/or they do not speak fluent English.

.
Huh? Your math makes no sense. Illegals are paid by W2 with withholding, and paid the same as anyone else doing that job. The IRS- not the INS- enforces that, and they will take the businesses bank account and padlock the doors if they dont. No one wishes to risk the IRS.

I worked a project with Farm laborers. About half were illegals, all were hispanic, even tho a couple were born here. They had a excellent job skill, one highly in demand- farm laborer, a skill few Anglos have or want to have. Many are paid by the lot and earn very good money during the season. They work very fast and efficient. Quite a few speak English.

Some work as independents doing gardening work, some do maid and cleaning, some work for construction, and in fact they are the backbone of construction work out here. You see a few Anglos doing supervision and detail work, like electrical, but most are hispanic and many are illegal- and they get paid the same. (The supervisors, electricians and plumbers make more, of course).
  #42  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:27 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why do you think they work for cheap?
Because the going rate for the kind of jobs they can get in the US is more than the going rate for the jobs they can get in their home country.

Regards,
Shodan
  #43  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:37 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Illegals are paid by W2 with withholding, and paid the same as anyone else doing that job.
Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and Mike Mulvaney beg to differ.
Quote:
This survey of New York City restaurant workers finds that 59 percent have experienced overtime wage violations, 57 percent have worked more than four hours straight without a paid break, and 13 percent have experienced minimum wage violations.
Cite.

Regards,
Shodan
  #44  
Old 08-01-2019, 06:04 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,778
Last time I checked, there's nothing illegal about requesting asylum, or at least, there never WAS, up until now. Provided you're not attempting to sneak into the country.

I think you can be against illegal immigration or open borders and also be against building a great big wall. Wanting to control the flow of illegal immigration and not wanting open borders doesn't make a person racist, in my view, it means recognizing that sadly, we don't have the resources to take care of everyone who wants in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
"Encourage stability in their home countries"? Short of invading their countries and installing a new government there is no way to do this. We have been trying to stabilize Latin America with varying degrees of success since ww2.
If, by "encourage stability" you mean overthrow democratically elected regimes in favor of dictatorships at the encouragement of the United Fruit Company" then yeah, I'd say we were successful.

  #45  
Old 08-01-2019, 08:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Nannygate was in 1993. And that last named didnt hire a illegal.

And that just proves my point. Those workers were getting paid by W2, had withholding and the same pay as the others. Yes, they often choose not to make waves. So?
  #46  
Old 08-01-2019, 10:14 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,541
Forget economic reasons. Point out all the problems with overcrowding and homelessness we have now and ask how allowing in another million illegals will make that better or worse? Does the US have to have the population density of Japan?
  #47  
Old 08-01-2019, 11:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Forget economic reasons. Point out all the problems with overcrowding and homelessness we have now and ask how allowing in another million illegals will make that better or worse? Does the US have to have the population density of Japan?

The USA is far from overcrowded.
  #48  
Old 08-02-2019, 09:59 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The USA is far from overcrowded.
Tell that to all the people in Los Angeles.
  #49  
Old 08-02-2019, 10:05 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,536
I drove from The south Chicago suburbs to Indianapolis recently, and boy Oh boy is America overcrowded!
  #50  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:14 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Tell that to all the people in Los Angeles.
LA is not the USA.

LA has many people there because there are many things to attract residents there. It is not because the USA is out of room.
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 03:41 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017