Undocumented immigrants crossing border - what *should* be the response?

[Kimstu]

@UltraVires

First, it is not like you can run a criminal history check on these people. Most third world countries do not have extensive computer databases like the U.S. and Canada do.

Where on earth did you get this assertion, and did you make sure to wipe carefully and wash your hands after obtaining it? Of course many third-world countries, including Mexico, India, Guatemala, etc., have online databases of criminal records. There are dozens of companies advertising their services in doing background checks on natives of these and other developing countries for prospective employers.

[Chronos]

Quoth octopus:

Who hates all immigration? That sounds like a strawman.

OK, then, in that case, Little Nemo’s proposal solves all of the problems, not just all but one. So let’s get to implementing it, right?

[Buck_Godot]

@octopus

Who hates all immigration? That sounds like a strawman.

Trump and his supporters apparently.

I’ll also note that it not like we are full up and can’t support any more people. As the radical leftistPaul Ryan points out, we actually need a population surge in order to support the ageing baby boomers. Now Ryan’s solution is that more American women need tolie down, open their legs and think of making America Great again. But why try to engage in social engineering when there are all the young workers we could ever want literally beating a path to our door.

It must be that these potential workers have something that makes them automatically inferior to the babies of good solid Republican Americans. I wonder what it is?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heck, you should be eagerly welcoming adult immigrants, since they can start contributing to the GNP almost right away as they’ve already finished that icky parasitic “childhood” phase that native-born Americans are prone to.

[Little_Nemo]

@octopus

Who hates all immigration? That sounds like a strawman.

I didn’t say right wingers don’t hate all immigration. They just hate immigrants from what they classify as “shithole countries”. They’re okay with immigrants from countries like Norway or Scotland or Slovenia.

[octopus]

@Chronos

OK, then, in that case, Little Nemo’s proposal solves all of the problems, not just all but one. So let’s get to implementing it, right?

Hmm. His solution has one glaring error. We already implement legal immigration. What we don’t offer is unlimited open borders.

[octopus]

@Little_Nemo

I didn’t say right wingers don’t hate all immigration. They just hate immigrants from what they classify as “shithole countries”. They’re okay with immigrants from countries like Norway or Scotland or Slovenia.

I don’t know a single person who is against limited immigration from any country. The people I know are against unlimited immigration. Most countries have borders and border control. Is the whole world right wing racists?

[Little_Nemo]

@magellan01

Because it is. Part of the left’s tactics is to attempt to shut down debate of issues by casting the positions they disagree with as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. When they can’t win a point on the merits—PRESTO—“Racist!”

I didn’t say conservative immigration policy is sexist or homophobic. I just said it was racist. Which it is.

Part of the right’s tactics is to attempt to shut down debate of issues whenever they’re doing something that’s racist by saying that other people are accusing them of being racist. When they can’t win a point on the merits—PRESTO—“Racist!”

[begbert2]

@octopus

I don’t know a single person who is against limited immigration from any country. The people I know are against unlimited immigration. Most countries have borders and border control. Is the whole world right wing racists?

I could have sworn that Trump was on the record for being against immigration from “shithole” countries. Perhaps you meant people you know personally?

[Little_Nemo]

@octopus

Hmm. His solution has one glaring error. We already implement legal immigration. What we don’t offer is unlimited open borders.

Then my solution has no glaring errors. Because there are countries that we don’t allow any normal legal immigration from. Like Mexico for example.

If you’re an average Mexican who wants to immigrate to the United States, there is no legal way for you to do so. The only way a Mexican can legally immigrate to the United States is through some special program like marrying an American citizen, being related to an American citizen, or investing $500,000 in American businesses.

Outside of these special programs (which are themselves limited) there is a ceiling to how many regular immigrants are allowed each year; 50,000. That’s how many regular immigrants in total the United States is willing to accept each year. Around twenty million people apply each year; fifty thousand are chosen.

But as I noted, Mexicans are not eligible for any of these 50,000 spots. Here are some other countries whose citizens are ineligible: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam.

@octopus

I don’t know a single person who is against limited immigration from any country.

I guess that’s technically true if you define something as limited immigration when the limit is zero.

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

Then my solution has no glaring errors. Because there are countries that we don’t allow any normal legal immigration from. Like Mexico for example.

If you’re an average Mexican who wants to immigrate to the United States, there is no legal way for you to do so. The only way a Mexican can legally immigrate to the United States is through some special program like marrying an American citizen, being related to an American citizen, or investing $500,000 in American businesses.

Outside of these special programs (which are themselves limited) there is a ceiling to how many regular immigrants are allowed each year; 50,000. That’s how many regular immigrants in total the United States is willing to accept each year. Around twenty million people apply each year; fifty thousand are chosen.

But as I noted, Mexicans are not eligible for any of these 50,000 spots. Here are some other countries whose citizens are ineligible: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam.

I guess that’s technically true if you define something as limited immigration when the limit is zero.

Wait…what? You are saying there is no legal immigration from Mexico to the US except your two special circumstances??? Um…since when? From what I recall something like 150k Mexicans legally immigrate to the US on average each year. Do you have a cite for no way except marriage or investment to legally immigrate from Mexico to the US?? I’ll be shocked since, again from memory, Mexico is actually the largest single country we GET legal immigrants from annually. Granted, I haven’t looked into this recently, so maybe under Trump it’s changed, but as of 2016 they were still the top country.

[Little_Nemo]

To throw some more numbers into the thread, I’ll note that 1,285,349 people immigrated into the United States in 1907. That was the peak year for immigration.

The population of the United States in 1907 was around 96,280,000. So in a single year, we accepted a number of immigrants that was 1.3% of our population. Let’s round it down to one percent.

As far as I can tell, our nation didn’t collapse in 1907. So it appears we can survive a one percent immigration rate.

The population of the United States in 2018 is around 327,160,000. If we accepted one percent of that figure as immigrants it would be 3,271,600. As I noted, the actual amount of immigrants we accept is far below this.

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

To throw some more numbers into the thread, I’ll note that 1,285,349 people immigrated into the United States in 1907. That was the peak year for immigration.

The population of the United States in 1907 was around 96,280,000. So in a single year, we accepted a number of immigrants that was 1.3% of our population. Let’s round it down to one percent.

As far as I can tell, our nation didn’t collapse in 1907. So it appears we can survive a one percent immigration rate.

The population of the United States in 2018 is around 327,160,000. If we accepted one percent of that figure as immigrants it would be 3,271,600. As I noted, the actual amount of immigrants we accept is far below this.

Honestly don’t know what you are trying to say. The population density in 1907 was vastly different than today, as were other factors…not sure why we would keep the same percentage of our population for immigration. That’s kind of insane to even try and peg it to that so not sure why you’d even suggest that.

Here are some more interesting stats on US immigration (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2017/04/20/430736/facts-immigration-today-2017-edition/):

Today’s immigrant population
Foreign-born population
Approximately 43.3 million foreign-born people live in the United States. Broken down by immigration status, the foreign-born population includes 20.7 million naturalized U.S. citizens and 22.6 million noncitizens.6 Of the noncitizens,7 approximately 13.1 million are lawful permanent residents,8 11.1 million* are unauthorized migrants,9 and 1.7 million hold temporary visas.10

The number of foreign-born individuals in the U.S. population has more than quadrupled since 1965 and is expected to reach 78 million by 2065.11 At just 9.6 million in 1965, foreign-born individuals represented 5 percent of the U.S. population. By 2015, immigrants made up 13.5 percent of the total U.S. population.12 Still, today’s share of the immigrant population as a percentage of the total U.S. population remains below its peak in 1890, when 14.8 percent of the U.S. population had immigrated to the country.13

The countries of origin of today’s immigrants are more diverse than they were 50 years ago. In 1960, a full 75 percent of the foreign-born population residing in the United States was from Europe, while in 2015, only 11.1 percent of the immigrant population was born in Europe. In 2015, 11.6 million foreign-born residents—26.9 percent of the foreign-born population—were from Mexico; 2.7 million immigrants were from China; 2.4 million were from India; 2 million were from the Philippines; 1.4 million were from El Salvador; 1.3 million were from Vietnam; 1.2 million were from Cuba; and 1.1 million each were from the Dominican Republic and South Korea.14
More Mexican immigrants are returning home than arriving in the United States. From 2009 to 2014, 1 million immigrants returned to Mexico while 870,000 arrived in the United States. This decline can be attributed to a drop of unauthorized Mexican immigrants, which peaked in 2007 at 6.9 million.15

Immigrants today are putting down roots across the United States, in contrast to trends seen 50 years ago. In the 1960s, two-thirds of U.S. states had populations in which less than 5 percent of individuals were foreign-born.16 From 2000 to 2014, the foreign-born population in the South increased 60 percent, accounting for 47 percent of overall change to the U.S. population. Additionally, the Northeast, Midwest, and West had increases of between 25 percent and 35 percent during this time period, accounting respectively for 16 percent, 10 percent, and 26 percent of the change to the overall U.S. population.17
Today, women outnumber men in the foreign-born population. Until the 1960s, immigrant men outnumbered immigrant women. However, by the 1970s, the number of female immigrants had surpassed the number of male immigrants.18 In 2015, 51.4 percent of the U.S. immigrant population was female and 48.6 percent was male.19

As of 2013, there were almost 1 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, adult immigrants in the United States. The estimated 904,000 LGBT adult immigrants are more likely to be young and male compared with the overall immigrant population.20
More than half of the foreign-born population are homeowners. In 2015, 50.7 percent of immigrant heads of household owned their own homes, compared with 65.2 percent of U.S.-born heads of household. Homeownership rates are comparable between native-born and naturalized immigrants, 64.6 percent of whom owned their own homes in 2015.21
Immigrants are becoming homeowners at a faster rate than the U.S.-born population. From 1994 to 2015, immigrant homeownership rose 2.3 percentage points while U.S.-born homeownership remained flat.22 Jacob Vigdor of the University of Washington estimates that immigrants contribute $3.7 trillion to housing markets nationwide.23

Fewer than 1 in 5 immigrants live in poverty. In 2015, the poverty rate for immigrants was 17.3 percent, compared with 14.3 percent for the U.S.-born population.24
Working-class, immigrant-headed households with incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty line rely less on public benefits and social services than comparable U.S-born households. In 2015, working-class, immigrant-headed households with children received 9.3 percent of their overall income from public programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Social Security, in comparison with U.S.-born-headed households, which received 15 percent of their income from such programs.25 Research consistently shows that working-class immigrants use social programs such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income at similar or lower rates than native-born households.26
As immigrants and their descendants integrate into American society, many aspects of their lives improve. Their education outcomes increase, they move to higher paying jobs, and they earn more money. Immigrant men have higher employment rates than U.S.-born men, and their wages rise the longer they are in the United States. On average, children of immigrants meet or exceed the educational attainment of third-plus generation natives. These children earn even higher wages, experience greater upward mobility in their professions, and are less likely to live in poverty than their parents.27

The 20 million adult U.S.-born children of immigrants have higher incomes than their parents. The median annual household income of second-generation Americans in 2012 was $58,100, just $100 below the national average. This is substantially higher than the median annual household income of their parents at $45,800.28

Compared with all Americans, U.S.-born children of immigrants are more likely to go to college, less likely to live in poverty, and equally likely to be homeowners. Thirty-six percent of U.S.-born children of immigrants are college graduates—5 percent above the national average. Eleven percent of adult U.S.-born children of immigrants live in poverty—below the national average of 13 percent—and 64 percent are homeowners, 1 percent below the national average.29
Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than the U.S.-born population. A 2017 study by the Cato Institute found that the 2014 incarceration rate for immigrants—both authorized and unauthorized—ages 18 to 54 was considerably lower than that of the U.S.-born population.30 While the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 11.1 percent to 13.5 percent from 2000 to 2015, FBI data indicate that violent crime rates across the country fell 16 percent, while property crime rates fell 21 percent during the same time period.31

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

Wait…what? You are saying there is no legal immigration from Mexico to the US except your two special circumstances??? Um…since when? From what I recall something like 150k Mexicans legally immigrate to the US on average each year. Do you have a cite for no way except marriage or investment to legally immigrate from Mexico to the US?? I’ll be shocked since, again from memory, Mexico is actually the largest single country we GET legal immigrants from annually. Granted, I haven’t looked into this recently, so maybe under Trump it’s changed, but as of 2016 they were still the top country.

I gave three examples of special programs: being married to an American, being related to an American, or investing money to America. There are other special programs. You can be classified as a “person of extraordinary ability” like an athlete, an entertainer, a corporate executive, or a college professor. You can be somebody who worked for the American government in your home country, like at an embassy or a military base. You can work for an American religious agency. You can be a refugee (but that might be changing). But the average person wouldn’t qualify under any of these special programs (I wouldn’t if I was applying).

Most Mexicans who legally immigrate to the United States do so under the provision of being related to an American citizen. It’s the “anchor baby” scenario; once one person in a family establishes citizenship, they can be used to bring in their family.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@k9bfriender

Send 'em on over. I need to hire more people in order to keep up with my demand.

This is actually the solution. Come up with a visiting worker visa program and allow them in during the time they can work. Anyone who doesn’t think such can work has never visited a beach town in summer where your waitress is Siobahn from County Cork here for the summer to earn some money.

They come because there’s demand for their services and it provides and opportunity for a better, safer life. Find a way to harness that motivation and the issue fades into the background.

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

Honestly don’t know what you are trying to say. The population density in 1907 was vastly different than today, as were other factors…not sure why we would keep the same percentage of our population for immigration. That’s kind of insane to even try and peg it to that so not sure why you’d even suggest that.

I was basically throwing out a number. I don’t know if my one percent figure is the ideal one. But it is, as I pointed out, one that occurred in the real world so it isn’t some impossible scenario.

[Strinka]

Why is it that the people who claim to not be opposed to legal immigration are always opposed to allowing more people to immigrate legally?

[Filbert]

@Jonathan_Chance

This is actually the solution. Come up with a visiting worker visa program and allow them in during the time they can work. Anyone who doesn’t think such can work has never visited a beach town in summer where your waitress is Siobahn from County Cork here for the summer to earn some money.

They come because there’s demand for their services and it provides and opportunity for a better, safer life. Find a way to harness that motivation and the issue fades into the background.

Siobhan

You’re never going to stop all immigration, you’re never even going to stop illegal immigration. Allowing a legal route, even a temporary one, is probably going to both cut down the illegal version, and reduce the possible negative effects of immigration though.

The more you cut down legal options, the more you crack down on illegal immigrants, the more they’re likely to feel like they have nothing to lose and the more likely they are to be pushed into dodgy situations, both as perpetrator and victim. Someone who has a legal status has recourse to options.

Yes, you probably will get some people come over on temporary work visas that don’t leave at the end, but if they’re pretty easy to get, and working with one is less risky than without, you probably won’t get many. You’ll get the young, healthy migrant workers, without the costs for childhood or old age, they get money that wouldn’t be available for them for the same work back home. It’s a win all round, really.

I’ve had two years’ temporary youth work visas in different countries, working in crappy agricultural jobs the locals didn’t want to do. There’s dodgy bits, but it works.

[puzzlegal]

@Skammer

Assuming these are refugees seeking asylum:

1. Provide them with food, water, blankets, medical attention etc. at the border.
2. If they have no place to go, put them in temporary housing (without breaking up family units) until an asylum hearing can be held.
3. If they have family/resources in the state, document their ID, contact information and where they will be staying and release them pending their asylum hearing. Experience has shown that the vast majority will show up to their hearings.
4. At such point when the court system gets its shit together, hold the asylum hearing. If asylum is granted, they stay. If denied, they are sent back (together as a family unit).

I don’t know why we make it more complicated than that.

ETA: I said “if they have resources in the state” but I mean in the country.

For refugees, this.

@BigT

Basically #2, except asylum is not the only option. There should be a process by which they can become legal immigrants, without having to completely send them back where they came. Granted, asylum should get priority, but our founding principle as a nation is immigration, and we should not turn our back on that.

I’m not opposed to granting them temporary visas while they apply to be full immigrants. They’re only a threat if we can’t keep track of them.

But this is not open borders. Our states have open borders, where they can’t even stop you going between the two. This is closed borders, but without treating immigrants as some sort of threat. They are, rather, an asset. People should only not be accepted for an actual cause.

and probably this. We could accepta great many more immigrants than we do.

@magellan01

At what point to you send the letters to all those waiting patiently going through the process legally? You know th e one that starts, “Dear Sucker…”

Huh? What line? People keep telling about this waiting love to get in legally. That’s not how it works.

@Little_Nemo

Then my solution has no glaring errors. Because there are countries that we don’t allow any normal legal immigration from. Like Mexico for example.

If you’re an average Mexican who wants to immigrate to the United States, there is no legal way for you to do so. The only way a Mexican can legally immigrate to the United States is through some special program like marrying an American citizen, being related to an American citizen, or investing $500,000 in American businesses.

Outside of these special programs (which are themselves limited) there is a ceiling to how many regular immigrants are allowed each year; 50,000. That’s how many regular immigrants in total the United States is willing to accept each year. Around twenty million people apply each year; fifty thousand are chosen.

But as I noted, Mexicans are not eligible for any of these 50,000 spots. Here are some other countries whose citizens are ineligible: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam.

I guess that’s technically true if you define something as limited immigration when the limit is zero.

This is how it works. And why “anchor babies” are sucha big issue.

@Strinka

Why is it that the people who claim to not be opposed to legal immigration are always opposed to allowing more people to immigrate legally?

I’ve wondered that, too.

[Velocity]

@Strinka

Why is it that the people who claim to not be opposed to legal immigration are always opposed to allowing more people to immigrate legally?

Because many oppose all or most immigration, period. Illegal immigration just rankles them even more.