Issues Thread #1 Immigration Issues (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

So if Bernie Madoff was an illegal  Nicaraguan immigrant he'd be allowed to stay? 

Well we covered this. I’m willing to include nonviolent felonies as subject to deportation. 

 

[timschochet]

In your system what would be the value of the documentation?

I don’t have a system. But the value of legal status, obviously, is that it allows you to participate in almost all aspects of American life  (minus voting) without the fear of deportation. 

 

[timschochet]

They do have that option before they arrive, they just choose not to use it. Why would they make that choice once they're here?  

Most undocumented people who have come here illegally never had the option to come here legally. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don’t have a system. But the value of legal status, obviously, is that it allows you to participate in almost all aspects of American life  (minus voting) without the fear of deportation. 

How are the undocumented going to participate without that then?

 

[timschochet]

How are the undocumented going to participate without that then?

They can’t. Which is why I think they should pay a fine and receive legal status. 

 

[Sand]

Let me open this up to the wider issues that were raised in the last election cycle: 

1. Should we limit the number of new immigrants? Keep them at the same rate? Or increase them? 

Yes we should.  Automation will even further increase the amount of aid that goes to immigrants as low skill jobs dry up.  Not to mention the idle hands problem that goes along with lack of employment.  And having them come through the front door instead of sneaking through the back will allow some slack to allow a bigger bucket of refugees, which as a compassionate people we should want.

2. Should we concentrate on taking in educated professionals rather than uneducated? Or should we accept everybody in line  regardless of skill level? 

There should be buckets which all have different sizes.  To be frank, we have more than enough low/no skilled illegal immigrants at the moment.

3. Should we concentrate on particular countries at the expense of others, or continue to take individuals regardless of country? 

If we can tilt it towards places that see a lot of discrimination that would be good.  Yezidis have had a tough time, Christians in Muslim countries, etc.

4. Should we close our doors to Immigrants from countries who we regard as enemies, particularly in the war on terror? 

There is always a give and take here.  In general yes.  We have near infinite demand for people who want to come and not enough slots.  One radical that kills citizens (or one illegal immigrant that kills a citizen) is too many.  Vetting is a huge deal.

5. Should we make war refugees a priority? 

War refugees are probably better off being repatriated.  We've obviously seen huge amounts of violence in Europe perpetrated by these folks.  A lot of it has to do with the migration patterns - there is a lack of sexual equality there.  Most of these immigrants are male and they lack like females (immigrants tend to be insular in the first generation).  At the least immigration should require equal amounts of the sexes to mitigate this.

These are hard questions and while I feel passionate about them, I acknowledge that there are few right and wrong answers.

 

[Sand]

They can’t. Which is why I think they should pay a fine and receive legal status. 

Spitballing, but I'd put the value of documents at conservatively in the 75-125k range.  If this was what the fine was set at I'd change my mind on the "fine and release" issue.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks Sand. I agree with some of what you wrote, disagree with more (no surprise there.) 

But let’s focus on one issue of at least partial agreement: I think you’re 100% correct that automation is going to kill unskilled labor, eventually. But that creates a bigger problem for us. If we take these people in then we can’t afford to ultimately feed them. If we don’t take them in, then they gather at our doorstep, angry and knocking at the border. As you know very well, hunger creates violent revolution. Can we sustain our way of life with, for example, an angry and radicalized Latin America directly below us? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They can’t. Which is why I think they should pay a fine and receive legal status. 

Ok, but then more come in. And then why didn’t they come in legally in the first place?

Actually I think that’s a good question - why do people come in illegally? Why not just apply for a passport?

 

[Sand]

Thanks Sand. I agree with some of what you wrote, disagree with more (no surprise there.) 

But let’s focus on one issue of at least partial agreement: I think you’re 100% correct that automation is going to kill unskilled labor, eventually. But that creates a bigger problem for us. If we take these people in then we can’t afford to ultimately feed them. If we don’t take them in, then they gather at our doorstep, angry and knocking at the border. As you know very well, hunger creates violent revolution. Can we sustain our way of life with, for example, an angry and radicalized Latin America directly below us? 

A bridge too far.  We have to first figure out how to deal with the idle hands in our own country, should this massive loss of employment opportunity come to pass. (I'm with Elon Musk here and see it as a huge issue.  Others disagree).

Glibly, I'd say we double the size of the wall.  

 

[timschochet]

Ok, but then more come in. And then why didn’t they come in legally in the first place?

Actually I think that’s a good question - why do people come in illegally? Why not just apply for a passport?

There are two types- the majority simply overstay their visas and hope they don’t get caught. They’re from all over the world. 

The minority are poor Hispanics from south of the border. They haven’t a hope in Hell of ever coming here legally- there is no line for them to get into. So they cross the border to find work. 

 

[timschochet]

A bridge too far.  We have to first figure out how to deal with the idle hands in our own country, should this massive loss of employment opportunity come to pass. (I'm with Elon Musk here and see it as a huge issue.  Others disagree).

Glibly, I'd say we double the size of the wall.  

I’m going to ask you the same question I asked earlier: what is the maximum population of this country that would sustain our way of life? 

 

[timschochet]

A bridge too far.  We have to first figure out how to deal with the idle hands in our own country, should this massive loss of employment opportunity come to pass. (I'm with Elon Musk here and see it as a huge issue.  Others disagree).

Glibly, I'd say we double the size of the wall.  

Elon Musk has always seemed to be an "open borders' kind of guy, though.

 

[Sand]

Elon Musk has always seemed to be an "open borders' kind of guy, though.

Elon's take.

IMO, it's easier to let people in than get them to leave, so immigration policy should be very conservative with this expectation.  Sadly it seems to be dominated by hysteria and fear mongering.

 

[psychobillies]

Most undocumented people who have come here illegally never had the option to come here legally. 

Ok.  Why is that? 

 

[timschochet]

Ok.  Why is that? 

Because the lines are too long, and are almost never open to poor people at our southern border.

 

[timschochet]

But forget what I think, psychobillies. What would YOU like to see happen?

 

[psychobillies]

Because the lines are too long, and are almost never open to poor people at our southern border.

That's a problem that doesn't go away when you dump it on the court system.  You still have to document them if you want to fine them and send them on their way.  The documentation process is slow and expensive.

 

[timschochet]

That's a problem that doesn't go away when you dump it on the court system.  You still have to document them if you want to fine them and send them on their way.  The documentation process is slow and expensive.

That is a good point. Hopefully though the amount of the fine would pay for it and then some. I’m not suggesting Sand’s amount mind you but it should be something signficant. Say $5000 a person. And you could streamline it to make it cheaper. 

 

[psychobillies]

But forget what I think, psychobillies. What would YOU like to see happen?

Not really what I want to see, but one solution would be to build the damn wall and then grant amnesty to those that are here.  Win/win, lose/lose.  Depends on how you see it.  Tax the cash being wired across the border and expand the immigration bureaucracy enough to start documenting people faster than we are now.  I hate to see that level of government grow that much, but I cant think of any other way.

Obviously this is an oversimplified answer, but something like this has to happen, I'm afraid.

 

[timschochet]

Not really what I want to see, but one solution would be to build the damn wall and then grant amnesty to those that are here.  Win/win, lose/lose.  Depends on how you see it.  Tax the cash being wired across the border and expand the immigration bureaucracy enough to start documenting people faster than we are now.  I hate to see that level of government grow that much, but I cant think of any other way.

Obviously this is an oversimplified answer, but something like this has to happen, I'm afraid.

Do you really think that the wall would have any effect on stopping undocumented immigration? 

 

[psychobillies]

Do you really think that the wall would have any effect on stopping undocumented immigration? 

Yes.  

 

[timschochet]

Yes.  

Well I have to take issue with you. 

The key to the number of undocumented people is the economic need for them. So long as that need is there they will keep coming. If, as Sand predicts, the need dies up due to technology, they’ll stop coming. 

 

[psychobillies]

Well I have to take issue with you. 

The key to the number of undocumented people is the economic need for them. So long as that need is there they will keep coming. If, as Sand predicts, the need dies up due to technology, they’ll stop coming. 

There needs to be a barrier of some sort to keep people from coming in without anybody knowing who they are or where they are.  They need to pass through customs.  There's really no good solution without it.  Open borders in reality, are an impossible concept if we expect to maintain any sort of law and order.

Technology will not stop them from coming.  We're always gonna need manual labor.  They will keep coming to escape poverty.  Parents come now knowing that they will be separated from their kids because it's still a better option than not coming.  I'm fine with immigration, but they gotta check in.  You and I were born here and we had to prove who we were before we could participate in society at any real level. 

Every other country in the world understands this.  Why is the USA supposed to pretend that we dont have borders? 

 

[timschochet]

There needs to be a barrier of some sort to keep people from coming in without anybody knowing who they are or where they are.  They need to pass through customs.  There's really no good solution without it.  Open borders in reality, are an impossible concept if we expect to maintain any sort of law and order.

Technology will not stop them from coming.  We're always gonna need manual labor.  They will keep coming to escape poverty.  Parents come now knowing that they will be separated from their kids because it's still a better option than not coming.  I'm fine with immigration, but they gotta check in.  You and I were born here and we had to prove who we were before we could participate in society at any real level. 

Every other country in the world understands this.  Why is the USA supposed to pretend that we dont have borders? 

We’ve always had borders.

But we also have always had people crossing them without papers. 

 

[psychobillies]

We’ve always had borders.

But we also have always had people crossing them without papers. 

We've never had a wall.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just an FYI: recent Supreme Court ruling related to this topic

Gorsuch joined the liberals here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The minority are poor Hispanics from south of the border. They haven’t a hope in Hell of ever coming here legally- there is no line for them to get into. So they cross the border to find work. 

Do you mean literally? I don’t think this is right. There are checkpoints at the border. We just had a whole series of national news stories and pictures of the ‘caravans’ sitting in line at the border waiting to get in.

Putting aside for the moment that the current president has twisted it, we do have a process for admission to this country.

 

[timschochet]

Do you mean literally? I don’t think this is right. There are checkpoints at the border. 

What I mean is this: one of the arguments I hear people make about undocumented persons is “why couldn’t they wait in line to come here like everyone else?” 

The reality is that for poor Hispanics south of the border, there is no line. Sure they could travel to Mexico City and formerly apply for a visa to the USA but they would be long dead of old age by the time it arrived. (And that’s not even taking into account my strong suspicion that in countries like Mexico the entire visa program is corrupt anyhow and you’d better have lots of dinero to get anywhere.) 

 

[Gopher State]

I agree with Mystery Achiever that non-violent offenses should be tossed in there as well.  If an undocumented immigrant gets convicted of embezzlement, for example, they should deported.  

X2

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Let me open this up to the wider issues that were raised in the last election cycle: 

1. Should we limit the number of new immigrants? Keep them at the same rate? Or increase them? 

2. Should we concentrate on taking in educated professionals rather than uneducated? Or should we accept everybody in line  regardless of skill level? 

3. Should we concentrate on particular countries at the expense of others, or continue to take individuals regardless of country? 

4. Should we close our doors to Immigrants from countries who we regard as enemies, particularly in the war on terror? 

5. Should we make war refugees a priority? 

These are hard questions and while I feel passionate about them, I acknowledge that there are few right and wrong answers.

1. Increase. We want people to want to come here.
   
2. Everyone.
   
3. Everyone.
   
4. No.
   
5. Anytime there is a crisis, we may need to make adjustments to help people.
   

Also:

• For those already here, there needs to be an expeditious path to citizenship.
  
• Limit any deporting to those that have committed crimes at the level of high misdemeanors or felons. And no, crossing the border itself doesn't count as a crime.
  

Why? Google 2 terms: Replacement Rate and Ellis Island.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

The wall is a good first start. Then we start mass deportations.

He'll have more flexibility after reelection.

 

[whoknew]

The wall is a good first start. Then we start mass deportations.

He'll have more flexibility after reelection.

Mass deportations of whom? 

How would the process work?

 

[timschochet]

The wall is a good first start. Then we start mass deportations.

He'll have more flexibility after reelection.

My speculation is that this viewpoint represents about 20% of the overall population, and perhaps half of those who consider themselves conservatives. 

Do you guys think my speculation here is accurate? 

 

[timschochet]

1. Increase. We want people to want to come here.
   
2. Everyone.
   
3. Everyone.
   
4. No.
   
5. Anytime there is a crisis, we may need to make adjustments to help people.
   

Also:

• For those already here, there needs to be an expeditious path to citizenship.
  
• Limit any deporting to those that have committed crimes at the level of high misdemeanors or felons. And no, crossing the border itself doesn't count as a crime.
  

Why? Google 2 terms: Replacement Rate and Ellis Island.

My speculation is that this viewpoint (which admittedly I mostly share) is representative of about 20% of the population and about 50% of those who regard themselves as progressive. 

Again, do you guys find this to be accurate? 

 

[timschochet]

That leaves 60%. Lets say 20% is indifferent. The remaining 40% is somewhere in the middle. They don’t like undocumented immigration and want reasonable controls, but they’re also against anything too draconian and they want people here already who aren’t violent to mostly stay. They’re in favor of DACA and are open to more legal immigration, and they don’t want to separate families, but they want illegal immigration to stop. 

You guys think that 40% is accurate? 

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Mass deportations of whom? 

How would the process work?

Mass deportations of illegals. Once the wall is up, the leak will be fixed. You cannot kick people out without having a secure border to keep them out.

I'm not sure of the process, but I'm sure Donald will have a few ideas. Going into the illegal sanctuary cities would be a great start.

Maybe offer amnesty to those who can rat out the whereabouts of other more dangerous illegals.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

My speculation is that this viewpoint represents about 20% of the overall population, and perhaps half of those who consider themselves conservatives. 

Do you guys think my speculation here is accurate? 

I'm not sure what the % is, but the important thing is that it's the President's viewpoint.

I'd be scared to be an illegal. The better the economy does, the more tolerance for draconian action (as you call it) the mass majority will have.

It won't get too bad though. Citizens in, illegals out. Border wall keeps them out. Path to legal citizenship for those who deserve it.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not sure what the % is, but the important thing is that it's the President's viewpoint.

I'd be scared to be an illegal. The better the economy does, the more tolerance for draconian action (as you call it) the mass majority will have.

It won't get too bad though. Citizens in, illegals out. Border wall keeps them out.

You’ve mentioned Trump in all three of your posts and I would prefer you didn’t, since I don’t want to discuss him or any other personality in this thread, which is supposed to be about the issue itself. Obviously you believe that your solution would be best for the country and that’s fine. I don’t agree with you. 

 

[Stuart Ullman]

You’ve mentioned Trump in all three of your posts and I would prefer you didn’t, since I don’t want to discuss him or any other personality in this thread, which is supposed to be about the issue itself. Obviously you believe that your solution would be best for the country and that’s fine. I don’t agree with you. 

Sorry friend!

 

[timschochet]

Stuart, in what ways do you think America would be improved if we carried out what you suggest: a wall on our southern border followed by mass deportations? How would that make our society better? 

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Stuart, in what ways do you think America would be improved if we carried out what you suggest: a wall on our southern border followed by mass deportations? How would that make our society better? 

I think society benefits from having the best and brightest in it. I find it insulting that Mexicans think it's okay to illegally enter our country and have kids to guilt trip us from deporting them.

It's more morally wrong, than hurtful. Many of them are great people and many are not.

If a wall helps keep families together (in Mexico) and keeps the drug dealers / murderers out. I think it's a net positive, even if it keeps the good Mexicans out.

Once we control the illegal immigration problem, we can begin to reform our current immigration program which is broken.

I'll take everyone who wants to come but we need documention and the opportunity to keep the "bad hombres" out. 

 

[timschochet]

I'll take everyone who wants to come 

Don’t have time to respond to you now but I’m interested in this one point: does it mean you’re for open immigration so long as it’s legal? 

 

[Stuart Ullman]

Don’t have time to respond to you now but I’m interested in this one point: does it mean you’re for open immigration so long as it’s legal? 

Absolutely. Otherwise it would just be blatant racism. My ancestors came from Europe. Everyone in the world deserves a shot at the American Dream if they want it.

But we have to have control over our borders. It's a key component to National Security, imo.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

My speculation is that this viewpoint (which admittedly I mostly share) is representative of about 20% of the population and about 50% of those who regard themselves as progressive. 

Again, do you guys find this to be accurate? 

I think the percentages are higher among progressives. Purposefully, the particular arguments listed are 1) economic and 2) historical. Not emotional.

1) Replacement rate is a bona fide economic input. A healthy expansion of the population over time is desirable, and we aren't achieving a high enough expansion rate through births alone. Immigration is the second piece of that formula.

2) Ellis Island is well, genuine American history. This country, its rise to greatness and how immigration ties to it, the Statue of Liberty, the early 20th Century. Just to list a tiny few examples. These points are historical. It's part of what makes our country great. 

So hopefully the percentage among the general population can be higher as well, with some more discussion on why those arguments are important to consider. Taking emotion largely out of the equation.

 

[HellToupee]

Saw something I never did before. We were heading north today and on the southbound side of I 93 between exits 30 & 31 the was a roadblock by US border patrol . It has to be 75-100 miles from the border. Really a strange sight

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Absolutely. Otherwise it would just be blatant racism. My ancestors came from Europe. Everyone in the world deserves a shot at the American Dream if they want it.

But we have to have control over our borders. It's a key component to National Security, imo.

This is an odd response considering the current law allows iirc 750,000 immigrants per year to come in. So let them in.

 

[Stuart Ullman]

This is an odd response considering the current law allows iirc 750,000 immigrants per year to come in. So let them in.

The topic is about ILLLEGAL immigration.

 

[JIslander]

I think society benefits from having the best and brightest in it. I find it insulting that Mexicans think it's okay to illegally enter our country and have kids to guilt trip us from deporting them.

It's more morally wrong, than hurtful. Many of them are great people and many are not.

If a wall helps keep families together (in Mexico) and keeps the drug dealers / murderers out. I think it's a net positive, even if it keeps the good Mexicans out.

Once we control the illegal immigration problem, we can begin to reform our current immigration program which is broken.

I'll take everyone who wants to come but we need documention and the opportunity to keep the "bad hombres" out. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The topic is about ILLLEGAL immigration.

Tim to you: >>you’re for open immigration so long as it’s ****legal? <<