That’s all there is to it? Seriously? Then why is there such a stink over sanctuary cities and states?
You know, we all got so consumed with calling the OP on his claims about “the left”, we forgot to note that: Trump couldn’t do this even if he wanted to. Immigration limits are set by Congress, so Congress would have to undo the limits.
So on what basis does the Congress set limits for migration? What types of calculations does it use to come to an agreed number.
And if that number gets exceeded what happens next. Do they close the borders. The obvious answer is no. They move the number upwards.
The sytem is based on quotas. For H1B, asylum, students, agricultural wrkers etc. Invariably the quota means nothing as it is a moveable feast and categories of applications are changed as the wind blows. In fact its a mockery as by far the largest category ie: those fleeing persecution cannot have an arbitrary limit set to it.
The migration limit is therefore political in persuasion. The limit is what the political class in power makes it to be. Trump thinks that number has been reached. He is taking steps to reverse the trend and is being hampered by a different and opposing political class.
Far libertarians have long advocated no borders at all. However the Kochs and other paymasters of the movement hate Trump so this might mute the libertarians support of any measure he brought in, even if it was supported by their doctrines and holy prophets.
Where are you getting this shit? There are a limited number of slots open, and once the slots are filled, you wait in line for the next year’s slots. But Congress sets the number of slots, not the president. If you were correct, then we’d already have open borders.
But they only advocate open borders within the context of a Libertarian government. no MW, no Welfare, no nothin’. You come here, you’re on your own.
Is it really shit?
How many slots are there for undocumented migrants? How many of the migrants were undocumented last year? What percentage of migrants in a year are undocumented, inadequately destroyed or falsely documented and asylum seekers. That number will be very very high compared to other categories, if you care to look at this shit ( your expression not mine).
So back to my question. How can you limit this asylum seeking plus undocumented category. How can you say what is the upper limit to this per year. There isnt any limit for this large category.
Would you care to back up any of your so-called “facts”, or are you one of those “No-I don’t have to. You show evidence that I am wrong!” posters?
11 million illegals in 2014.
Approx 65k granted asylum every year. Each of the asylees is allowed to bring family into the USA after being granted Asylum. So multiply 65k by a minimum of 4. All legally allowed into the country.
Not counting students, H1B, visitors etc etc who overstay and hide inside the economy every year.
Not counting those who enter by whatever means and never come in any stats.
They don’t reserve slots for undocumented migrants. They set a limit on immigration visas and refugees. What the hell are you talking about?
Exactly my point. There can be no prediction for undocumented passengers/illegals. So any assertion that Congress sets the numbers is exercise in stupidity. Congress can only control legal numbers ie visitors, business visitors, students, legal workers etc. Even in this category the percent of overstayers ie those who dont go back is as high as 50 % see cite above.
Does Congress take these numbers into account on a yearly basis and change legal immigration numbers. No they dont. They do try sometimes but lobbyists win all the time.
Trump is trying exactly this. Limiting legal immigration by banning some countries. He is getting nowhere. He is trying to ban illegal immigration by building a wall. Going nowhere with that too.
So will you left reconsider when stats show illegal residents to have risen above 50 million.
Didnt think so.
Guess I should have figured you just wanted to rant about illegal immigration. Enjoy yourself.
Ofcourse my bad. A thread titled no borders is veering of course when it mentions illegal migration. :smack:
Not off course so much as incoherent.
Why does the thread title talk about “no borders”? We’ve had to discover the real purpose in the following sequence:
[ul]
[li]Post #1 which mysteriously asks about “open borders to all”, which is a ridiculous straw man that no reasonable person or group has ever proposed as a realistic strategy,[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Post #4 which introduces the conspiracy-theory element, and[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Post #9 which goes full-bore conspiracy theory.[/li][/ul]
Apparently you don’t really want to talk about immigration; you want to talk about some fanciful conspiracy theory that some insidious group wants “open borders to all”, and that this group is represented by “the left”. This is, however, utter nonsense and not the basis for a serious discussion.
The amount of legal immigration allowed by Congress has nothing to do with home much illegal immigration there is. The two are not linked. Per the OP, Congress can (not Trump, Congress) change that limit. But Congress can’t control how much illegal immigration there is. We can try our secure our border as best we can, but that only goes so far. If you want to discuss illegal immigration, you should change your OP or start another thread.
Undocumented migrants is such a silly euphemism.
It’s not technically a eupemism since it’s perfectly descriptive. You probably prefer the zing of “illegals” but that’s not more accurate or anything. Also, I was just using the same words naanbread did.
Exactly. How can a human being be “illegal”? They can do something illegal, but there is no specific law that makes it illegal to be human.
That’s a nice sentiment, but it’s not how English works. We call people murderers all the time, for example. We could equally call them unlawful life-enders or illegal killers without abusing the English language. And we frequently abridge adjective-noun compounds like illegal immigrant by dropping the noun when the meaning is clear from context. If we were talking about airplanes, you wouldn’t think I was a non-native speaker if I started talking about two-seaters.
The term is perfectly cromulent English. It’s just dehumanizing, especially given the current connotation of its use by white nationalists. It also constitutes a subtle sleight of hand by using a generic term “illegal” that covers lots of reprehensible conduct (murdering, for example) in addition to the conduct at issue here, enforcement of a broken immigration system that is deeply unjust. Immigration-law violater doesn’t have the same argumentative force precisely because one of the only things going for the side arguing for strict enforcement is a kind of blind fidelity to the law as law, and not a defense of the morality of this particular law.