Back in the day, “migrant” was used to mean someone who moved from place to place, following the work he did. People who entered a country from another were “immigrants”.
When did this change?
I don’t think it has.
An immigrant is a migrant. An emigrant would also be a migrant.
From the Merriam-Webster website, “People are emigrants when they leave their country of origin. When they arrive at their destination, they are immigrants.”
And through the whole trip, they are migrants.
Also, some or all of these people are seeking asylum here. If granted asylum, they will be immigrants. If they are not granted asylum and on account of that, don’t get to stay so they leave, then obviously they won’t be immigrants.
If they aren’t granted asylum but manage to stay anyway without legal authorization, somebody better remind me what the (I hate to use this phrase, but) politically correct term for them is.
I just heard DeSantis say on NBC News that the migrants were a “burden” on the people of Martha’s Vineyard.
The people who aided them sure didn’t look or act burdened to me. They extended a welcome hand and got them everything they needed, which I’m sure was not the intent of whoever initiated this.
“Blessed are the hot chicks, for they can be grabbed by the…” — MAGA Jesus (aka Cheesus)
AFA DeSantis is concerned, I keep expecting something either funny, or at least humanish, from a Shemp Howard look alike.
I am sure Shemp resembles that remark. 
But yeah, perhaps his little Martha’s Vineyard stunt got the libs a little too riled-up, since he seems to feel the need to explain why what he did was OK. SMH
Come on, Texas sheriff guy!
Both. I don’t have to make the hard decisions.
Ideally, existing immigrants should be amnestied, the legal immigration quota should be maybe four times higher, and, starting the day after the preceding takes effect, any employer who doesn’t carefully use eVerify, or something better, should spend the weekend in jail with no TV.
But that still means good people desperately seeking a better life for their family will be put in a terrible position where they either get deported, or face Romney-style self-deportation. A fully moral policy is politically, and practically, impossible.
You need to get e verify up and running much better than it is if that’s going to be the case.
Keep in mind that you aren’t just e verifying immigrants, you are e verifying every employee.
I’ve got my personal gripes, but I’ll leave you with the ACLU’s much better summation.
https://www.aclu.org/other/whats-wrong-e-verify
At the very least, they need to pay $500 a day to any eligible employee falsely flagged until the matter is resolved.
And, you know, I don’t want to have to figure out how to use eVerify every time I hire a plumber or an electrician.
Can you even use eVerify for that? I mean, assuming you don’t own a plumbing or electrical business. If you’re just bringing them in to your house to fix something, you’re not their employer any more than the person that delivers your pizza.
At best, I think, if the plumber you called is working for themselves, they might be considered a 1099 contractor from your POV and I don’t think you’d be required to use eVerify for them.
In any case, assuming you’re not an employer, this is likely all moot. I’m not even sure you could enroll without an EIN.
If Americans want to ensure that only those legally allowed to work worked, one way to accomplish that would involve a national ID card, issued to all citizens, permanent residents and visa holders. It might use biometrics to verify that it’s being used by the intended person; the government of India implemented such a system to over a billion people so perhaps they can be consulted for advice.
Of course many of the same people who freak out about “illegals” taking jobs would also freak out about “the mark of the beast” so they wouldn’t want such a thing.
Exactly, which is one of the reasons that everify won’t stop undocumented residents from seeking work.
If someone shows up on a hot day and offers to mow my lawn, I’m not checking their work eligibility status.
eVerify is one of those simple answers to complex problems that sounds good until you actually bother to think about it, and then you come to realize how ineffective it actually is at what it is meant to do, and how much harm it can cause.
And you could use it as voter ID. Of course, that would make it easy to vote, so another reason it will never happen.
It’s certainly not going to stop all undocumented residents from seeking work - nothing will ever be able to stop them from seeking the type of work where they are hired by individuals on a per job basis , like mowing a lawn or cleaning out a basement or garage. It could work for other situations , such as the sweatshops that still exist - but only if the employers are punished severely enough that hiring and exploiting undocumented people is not worth the risk. But that will never happen.
Or a group gets together and does personal service work of that sort. Lots of opportunities for cash business that way.
I see all hispanic work crews in my neighborhood all the time. I have no idea as to their legal status, but it stands to reason that at least some of them are entirely made of ineligible workers.
Well, I don’t think that sweatshop conditions should be allowed in any workplace, so that’s where I would be happy to punish the employer, but I don’t know that it’s really fair to punish the employer for being lied to by an employee.
Personally, I’d rather make it easier for everyone to find work, and a lack of eligibility means that you need to go fill out a form to become eligible, not just apply for and hope for approval, but more of on a “shall issue” basis.
You know who will never need to eVerify their employees? Gangs. If we shut down all legal avenues for gainful employment, we leave people with no choice but to pursue illegal avenues.