You self reported this so I’m going to only issue a note here. Don’t appear to insult other posters.
[/moderating]
I’m saying that serious attempts at immigration control should focus on the employer. For the US that means strengthening eVerify, which is currently strictly optional if you are not a government contractor. E-Verify - Wikipedia There are all manner of ways to fairly clamp down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
In northern Europe, illegal immigrants are forced to work in the underground economy, if I’m reading the subtext of this paper properly. In other words they can’t easily secure ordinary jobs like they can in the US restaurant, farming or construction industries.
Because unenforced laws are very similar to no law at all.
Don’t get me wrong. Frankly I think this whole debate stinks of nativism. I’m almost indifferent between halving or doubling aggregate immigration quotas. I’m just saying that the proper focal point for immigration control is at the employer level. It’s not like somebody who overstays their tourist visa does any harm if they are just spending money here and are not receiving governmental funding. And discussion of border walls is silly.
This sounds very sensible to me.
Just remember that the act of illegally entering the country is a criminal act, and work onwards from there.
E-verify is craptastic. There is NO WAY to 100% verify right to reside & work in the USA. Even ICE gets it wrong sometimes.
And no, there are not, not unless they *knowingly *hire illegals. Very hard to prove unless they dont get a SSN or they pay them under the table.
And, we need them for the Ag industry.
E-Verify sucks. It is not an instant check, so you either have to put off someone’s start date until it comes back, or take the chance of spending time on training someone you will have to fire if it doesn’t come back.
It misses quite a number of people it should catch, meaning that you may be employing an an ineligible worker, and it has occasional false positives, leading to not hiring perfectly eligible workers.
It is also something that if you do, you have to do for every single hire. If you only e-verify the people you think may be unauthorized, that is the definition of discrimination, and can land you with a nice lawsuit.
It’s not like it is all that hard to pay people under the table. I don’t believe in doing so myself, but I have taken jobs that paid under the table in the past, and that was as a fully eligible citizen worker.
We’d pretty much have to get rid of cash as a legitimate transaction medium in order to really crack down on unauthorized immigrant employment. That and create a much more robust E-Verify, which would probably mean actually having a national ID.
If a person gives me the documents that are listed on the I-9 form, either one class A, or a class B and Class C ID, and the documents seem legitimate, then I cannot hold extra suspicion, I cannot subject them to extra scrutiny, whether asking for further documentation or submitting to E-Verify.
Personally, I’m for only screening immigrants for criminal or very antisocial concerns. I completely disagree with a Muslim ban, but I would agree with an interview question like, “In this country, we hold tolerance of diversity to be one of our greatest strengths. With this in mind, would you be tolerant towards people of different religions(including individuals who have left your religion), different ethnicities, different national origins, different genders, and different sexual orientations?”
If they say, “No”, then we tell them to have fun continuing to live in the country where they are not tolerant. If they say, “Yes”, then after a few other questions along those lines, we continue to work towards making them a productive resident and ultimately citizen.
If they claim they can get along in our society, I am inclined to take them at their word. Interviews are important not necessarily in sussing out what sort of person some is, but more importantly to set the expectations for the person being interviewed. I don’t ask a potential employee if they were late to their last job, I tell them that the expectation is that they are on time, and ask if they can hold to that. Same with immigrants. We don’t ask how they handled the situation they are leaving, we ask if they can handle the situation they are going to.
I don’t have a problem taking the world’s criminals either. If we do any sort of criminal justice reform, we are going to end up with some very empty jails and some very unemployed prison workers. So, I say, if we catch criminals trying to come in, or if people commit criminal acts after they have gotten here, then we go ahead and lock them up in our jails, we have plenty of space. This is preferable to sending them back to a country that may not be as capable of dealing with these criminals. We can even send the countries a pro-rated bill to pay towards the housing of their citizens.
As far as overstaying visas, they shouldn’t have to. I do think that people who are not planning on staying here should get temporary visas, so that we know those whoa r here, but they should be nearly automatic renewals. If they overstay their visa, it should be like not renewing your driver’s license on time. A bit of an extra fine, to encourage people to keep their info up to date, but nothing major, certainly not a deportation level infraction.
Remember that we have made certain types of entry into criminal acts, even though our ancestors did the same thing when they entered, and it was not considered a criminal act.
Also remember that if we do not have a legitimate way for people to get in, especially for claiming asylum, then we are creating a situation that increases the number of people committing these criminal acts that you are so concerned over. Do we have no responsibility for that?
You should also note that the post that you were responding to was about potential immigrants in the first place. Meaning that it would be taking place before any border crossing took place, criminal or legitimate, so your response is a non-sequitur to the post you were replying to.
Ironically, the sole politician in recent years to speak in favor of open borders was Ronald Reagan. Quoted from the Republican presidential primary debate, April 23, 1980:
"Can I add to that? I think the time has come that the United States and our neighbors, particularly our neighbor to the south, should have a better understanding and a better relationship than we’ve ever had …. Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit – and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems."
You are by capita the 13th most prosperous nation in the world, by your own CIA estimate.
The multilinguals like the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Luxembourg, etc are all richer per capita and of course the minor year to year variations, the Germans, the Dutch, the other Scandinavians are as rich.
It is odd the combination of boasting and the feeble confidence in the identity it caught my eye.
It is strange the idea that it so weak and so feeble that the cultural identies are endanger from more than one language.
How my own identity is some how threatened in my context where we have every day three languages, sometimes four, in the public signs and announcements… I don’t know.
So is cheating on your income tax and going 66 in a 65 zone. So?
Until a few decades ago, that’s how things worked; some people traveled to the US from Mexico for agricultural work and then returned to Mexico at the end of the season. The current system of imprisoning asylum-seekers, migrants and so forth seems tailor-made to make money for those who operate detention centers.
And then there’s the crazy system in which children, as young as two years old, appear in immigration court without parent, guardian or any sort of counsel.
- The interview. What sort of worthless exercise is that:
Interviewer: Mr. Atta, can you be tolerant of others?
Atta: Ah, well, no, see I was planning on flying planes into the WTC.
Interviewer: Well, thanks for your honestly, but we just cannot let you in.
Atta: Damn, you guys are good. I almost had you!
-
Of course we have “made” certain things illegal. That’s how laws work. Our ancestors could own fully automatic weapons. If I am caught with one should it be a successful argument that we just “made” the law and I should ignore it?
-
It is our fault that more people are coming because it is illegal? We are a sovereign nation. Nobody has a right or privilege to come here. If they try, we need to enforce our laws and stop them.
-
We have crimes of attempt and conspiracy. These people in the caravan have been told that they may not come in, but they say that they are coming anyways. Those are people openly flouting the criminal law of the United States before they even get here. I would turn away those people before I would turn away someone who is opposed to transgender bathroom use or is opposed to same sex marriage.
Israel, who is very good at these things, seems to think it works very well. Also the FBI. But I guess you’re a expert on criminology?
Are you going to back off on your racist and ignorant comments about the caravaners being ""uneducated and illiterate " ? Or just keep digging the hole deeper?
They are largely uneducated and illiterate. How is it racist and ignorant to point out known facts?
Because they are not. Honduras has a slightly great literacy and High school rate
compared to Alabama. Would you say Alabama is “largely uneducated and illiterate”?
So, instead of backing down on a racist comment, you’re going to double down on it, eh?
You are the lawyer so I assume you must know the answer better than I: does a person have a right to seek asylum in another country, specifically the U.S.?
I found out where you apparently got that- from one right wing hate monger. No one else is saying they are “uneducated and illiterate”- likely because they are *not. *
I’ve never been to Overland Park, but I have been to Arkansas City. Frequently.
It’s one of those towns that is experiencing the emptying-out of rural America. First, of course, it took less people to do the farming, so you had fewer people coming in to the county seat to do business and spend money. Then the small factories that kept those towns going got bought up by big companies (or went bust trying to compete with them) and then the company consolidated operations, and there were only factories in some of those towns. Ark City’s had a difficult time of it since Total Petroleum closed its refinery there 15-20 years ago: when I was back in town nearly a decade ago for my uncle’s funeral, I was in the local Wal-Mart on a Saturday morning, and the place was nearly empty. It’s somewhat recovered since (the town, that is; didn’t check the Wal-Mart when I was there recently), but it’s still somewhere in between ‘surviving’ and ‘thriving.’
So while the land that looks like empty space on the map is farmed and grazed, there’s plenty of space in town for people to settle. Maybe Overland Park is full, but Arkansas City isn’t. And I bet there are a number of towns like Ark City in Kansas.
Philadelphia had a half million more people when I was a kid. And Pittsburgh’s down by almost 400,000. There are many other examples of hollowed-out American cities that have gone downhill as people left.
It is much efficient to have an urbanized society. The most prosperous westernized countries (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Singapore) almost all have much higher population density than the US. There’s only one country, with less population density than the US, where the average person is better off economically than we Americans are. That’s Norway, and its situation is due to fairly recent off-shore oil discoveries that will eventually run out. (I offer apolgies to any offended Norweigians, reading this, for simplifying their situation, but I think my statement is literally correct.)
One of the worst things that happenned, for our children’s sake, during the Obama administration, is that the US went from a near-replacement fertility rate to having a below-replacement fertility similar to the UK. There’s no sign of a bounce-back. So (assuming you aren’t already elderly, or close to it), if you want for there to be people around to pay social security taxes when you are collecting – and US social security is not really pre-funded – a lot of immigration is needed.
I’m not for open borders. I totally get that, pace David Frum, if liberals don’t defend our national borders, voters will elect right-wing extremists to do it. But, as a matter of national interest, and allowing that some types of immigration help us more than others, a lot more Americans are needed.
I’d have a trial. If it is proven that the execs knew or willingly turned a blind and should have and could have easily know, it’s orange jumpsuit time.
The problem is that the Dems refuse to agree to secure the border first. And every sane person realizes that if it is not done first it will not be done. Just as it was promised but not done after Reagan’s amnesty, or after the bi-partisan 9/11 commission report.
Comprehensive immigration reform would have done this. And many Republicans supported it. But their leaders didn’t allow a vote for it. It’s ludicrous to blame the out-of-power party for this, especially when they supported a bill that addressed border security.
If the Republicans had allowed a full vote on comprehensive immigration reform, it would have passed with votes from both parties, and you would have your additional border security. Why didn’t the Republican leaders allow a vote on this bill?