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.
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?
Republican plan to prevent any asylum seekers to enter America.
Do not allow anyone to request asylum at a point of entry.
Since you must be in the country to request asylum, then anyone that wants to request asylum must enter the country another way.
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.
put them all in detention because they entered illegally.
make conditions terrible on purpose as a deterrent for others to follow (it is documented that this is official administration policy)
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)
lather, rinse repeat
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?
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][LIST=a][li]Prohibition of discrimination based on national origin or citizenship status[/li][ol][li]General rule[/li]
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-
[LIST=A][li]because of such individual’s national origin, or[/li]
[li]in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual’s citizenship status.[/ol][/li][li]Exceptions[/li]
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-
[LIST=A][li]a person or other entity that employs three or fewer employees,[/li]
[li]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[/li]
[li]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.[/LIST][/li][li]“Protected individual” defined[/li]
As used in paragraph (1), the term “protected individual” means an individual who-
[LIST=A][li]is a citizen or national of the United States, or[/li]
[li]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.[/LIST][/li][li]Additional exception providing right to prefer equally qualified citizens[/li]
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.
[li]Prohibition of intimidation or retaliation[/li]
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.
[li]Treatment of certain documentary practices as employment practices[/li]
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).[/LIST][/LIST][/SPOILER]
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.
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.
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?.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.:dubious::rolleyes:
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.
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.