Respectful discussion and debate with Trump supporters requested: Topic # 1 Undocumented immigration (1 Viewer)

[RedmondLonghorn]

I'll press it for him.  Why, because we eithe3r are or are not a country based on law. If the rule of law is subject to being overridden by emotional appeal we have no law.  It the law is wrong we change it, we do not ignore it, or at least we should.  The more frequently we forget his the more in danger we are of losing that which makes us as Americans us.  BTW that is what makes this country worth sneaking into.

What would happen to the economy, it would be a short term disruption and disaster.  something on the scale of a Katrina or a Mt. St. Helens but less than the attack on Pearl Harbor. We would adjust quickly with Americans taking up the slack and with congress forced to get off of their ### and actually pass a sensible work visa program in short order.  It would actually serve to fix things.  It would end this endless debate and perhaps nothing else would.  What I don't suppose is we would be paralyzed into inaction leading to eventual starvation.  I suppose deep down we are still a resilient people, though I acknowledge I have some doubts.

I agree with you most of the time, on most matters. But I really disagree with your thinking here. I also believe your assessment of the damage it would wreak economically and fiscally is naive. I bet you don't get called naive very often.

 

[RCon]

Good discussion DW, we'll have to agree to disagree. I respect what you're saying, but I don't see the slippery slope that you do.

In any case, I need to reiterate that I am NOT in favor of lawlessness. I would have most of these people (the ones who are not felons) pay a fine. Granted, my method of punishment is not the same as yours, but it is punishment nonetheless. I am not proposing that we simply let them get away with it.

Except that you are.  You're arguing that in the meantime, until the laws are changed, they and others should continue to break the law as it exists today.

 

[timschochet]

Except that you are.  You're arguing that in the meantime, until the laws are changed, they and others should continue to break the law as it exists today.

If the alternative is forced deportation, sure. That's too harsh a punishment. 

 

[BowieMercs]

I respectfully submit that we have covered this subject as best we can. Shut it down before it gets ugly. 

 

[timschochet]

I respectfully submit that we have covered this subject as best we can. Shut it down before it gets ugly. 

I don't have the power to shut threads down. And why should it get ugly?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I agree with you most of the time, on most matters. But I really disagree with your thinking here. I also believe your assessment of the damage it would wreak economically and fiscally is naive. I bet you don't get called naive very often.

You are a well-reasoned fellow.  Also, you seem to have some formal education, and maybe life experience or work experience in financial matters.  I have no doubt you have greater knowledge in things economic than do I.  I will expand upon my thinking and consider any critique you may offer.

The generally accepted, or bandied about figure for illegal aliens is that they comprise about 10,000,000 souls. I happen to think it is larger, but that is the figure most work with, so I will too. That places them at about 3% of our population.  By extrapolating one would or could assume we are then speaking to around the same % of our workforce, give or take information on family size trends and other matters, so maybe 3,000,000 workers, maybe less.  Now I believe we have basic agreement that this roughly 3% of our workforce tends to be the less skilled and therefore more readily replaceable portion of our workforce. If they were removed we would not be losing, presumably, the folks that make the jets fly, the traffic signals sync, nor the water systems flow.  We would rather be endangering timely harvests and timely completion of construction.  (Obviously this is a broad generalization and I recognize we may lose Doctors, Professors, Engineers, and Artists as well.)  Now timely harvest can certainly ripple throughout the economy and have a disproportionate effect that may be greater than the presence or effort of 3% of the workforce but that is what we would need to replace, 3%.  The question is, then have we seen instances of this % of folks being displaced, or removed from the workforce.  Certainly we have in our world wars, but we have also in natural disasters, at least temporarily.  We have always absorbed or compensated for this amount.

We have far more folks than this currently unemployed.  We have workers available to fill the void, we just do not have agreement that they will worked for the wages in question.  I don't see us grinding to a halt, I see the essential functions getting performed at slightly higher marginal rates (we will need to incentivize the available workforce to accept the jobs) for the time it takes to create a responsible guest worker program to create some competition for these jobs to push down the marginal rates of pay on them.

It seems to me we are talking about, by percentages, not a huge disruption, nor a long term one.  Now also the scenario is incredibly artificial since we will never have that entire workforce disappear overnight. Necessarily, unless someone has a magic wand, there would be a transition period that would ameliorate the shock of an instant transition.  We have built a straw man here that could never occur and are then arguing real world effects of that.  Well we could argue more realistic hypotheticals.  Regardless, it may be that in my ignorance in matters of the economy that I completely lack an appreciation for a phased move out of 3% of our workforce in the less skilled sector of the workforce.  Perhaps there are cascading collapses that would occur that I do not even conceptually recognize.  I am happy to read any theories or explanations you might present and give them consideration.

As for things I have been called, naive might be among the nicest.

 

[Politician Spock]

So the collective utility of 300+ million people aren't negative impacted if consumer prices rise, for the right reasons.

That is something I never learned in studying economics.

300+ million are currently paying lower prices because of the exploitation of human beings. It's not so much that rising prices are good as it is we stop doing bad, and justifying it with lower prices. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Oh, and most of the Trump supporters have been pleasant enough. Leave it to a bitter Bernie bro to get testy when his fictional economic theories are challenged.

I was more than happy to respond to your request for me continue my argument. The unpleasantry started when you said this: "I'd love to hear your logic and explanations even if I already know it to be wrong". Leave it to a head in the sand Hillary supporter to fail to see that maybe there's more to issues than what they are willing to see. 

 

[timschochet]

I was more than happy to respond to your request for me continue my argument. The unpleasantry started when you said this: "I'd love to hear your logic and explanations even if I already know it to be wrong". Leave it to a head in the sand Hillary supporter to fail to see that maybe there's more to issues than what they are willing to see. 

I don't think Redmond supported Hillary. 

 

[BowieMercs]

I don't have the power to shut threads down. And why should it get ugly?

It SHOULDN'T get ugly. But it's moving in that direction already.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't think Redmond supported Hillary. 

Perhaps. But he certainly reflects the head in the sand behavior of failing to see how they lost when they are just so right about everything. 

 

[timschochet]

It SHOULDN'T get ugly. But it's moving in that direction already.

Not really, and nowhere near the level of any other thread on Trump. 

But Im not about to police anybody. People can post what they want. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I was more than happy to respond to your request for me continue my argument. The unpleasantry started when you said this: "I'd love to hear your logic and explanations even if I already know it to be wrong". Leave it to a head in the sand Hillary supporter to fail to see that maybe there's more to issues than what they are willing to see. 

One of the things about message boards is that momentary thoughts, passing comments, are frozen in time and preserved, giving them more weight than may have been intended.  Redmond is a good guy.  It may be that he did not realize quite how you would react to his statement.  Maybe you can take it with a grain of salt.  Maybe he only meant a very slight poke, and not any real unpleasantry, maybe?

 

[whoknew]

I don't have the power to shut threads down. And why should it get ugly?

Maybe you can switch to topic #2 ?

 

[timschochet]

Perhaps. But he certainly reflects the head in the sand behavior of failing to see how they lost when they are just so right about everything. 

 Nah. I supported Hillary. Redmond can't touch me for head in the sand behavior. 

 

[Politician Spock]

One of the things about message boards is that momentary thoughts, passing comments, are frozen in time and preserved, giving them more weight than may have been intended.  Redmond is a good guy.  It may be that he did not realize quite how you would react to his statement.  Maybe you can take it with a grain of salt.  maybe he only meant a very slight poke, and not any real unpleasantry, maybe?

I'm putting the ####### on ignore. I thought this thread was supposed to be free and clear of that crap. Obviously it's not. 

 

[timschochet]

Maybe you can switch to topic #2 ?

I did. 

 

[Politician Spock]

 Nah. I supported Hillary. Redmond can't touch me for head in the sand behavior. 

 

[whoknew]

I did. 

Oh sorry. I missed that. Maybe change the title too?

 

[BowieMercs]

Maybe you can switch to topic #2 ?

He's always going to have the last word ... it's pointless to suggest that a conversation is over.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm putting the ####### on ignore. I thought this thread was supposed to be free and clear of that crap. Obviously it's not. 

Certainly your prerogative.  BTW, and apropos of nothing, I generally find you quite an interesting read. 

 

[BowieMercs]

Certainly your prerogative.  BTW, and apropos of nothing, I generally find you quite an interesting read. 

 Ignore is the civilized way to deal with irreconcilable discord. 

 

[Politician Spock]

 Ignore is the civilized way to deal with irreconcilable discord. 

He was dragging me down to his level, and would have beaten me with experience. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I was more than happy to respond to your request for me continue my argument. The unpleasantry started when you said this: "I'd love to hear your logic and explanations even if I already know it to be wrong". Leave it to a head in the sand Hillary supporter to fail to see that maybe there's more to issues than what they are willing to see. 

I don't know how you made the leap that I supported Clinton. 

You made a statement that was, economically speaking, foolish. I said as much. I was a tad snarky and that was probably not ideal, but JFC dude, relax.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

You are a well-reasoned fellow.  Also, you seem to have some formal education, and maybe life experience or work experience in financial matters.  I have no doubt you have greater knowledge in things economic than do I.  I will expand upon my thinking and consider any critique you may offer.

The generally accepted, or bandied about figure for illegal aliens is that they comprise about 10,000,000 souls. I happen to think it is larger, but that is the figure most work with, so I will too. That places them at about 3% of our population.  By extrapolating one would or could assume we are then speaking to around the same % of our workforce, give or take information on family size trends and other matters, so maybe 3,000,000 workers, maybe less.  Now I believe we have basic agreement that this roughly 3% of our workforce tends to be the less skilled and therefore more readily replaceable portion of our workforce. If they were removed we would not be losing, presumably, the folks that make the jets fly, the traffic signals sync, nor the water systems flow.  We would rather be endangering timely harvests and timely completion of construction.  (Obviously this is a broad generalization and I recognize we may lose Doctors, Professors, Engineers, and Artists as well.)  Now timely harvest can certainly ripple throughout the economy and have a disproportionate effect that may be greater than the presence or effort of 3% of the workforce but that is what we would need to replace, 3%.  The question is, then have we seen instances of this % of folks being displaced, or removed from the workforce.  Certainly we have in our world wars, but we have also in natural disasters, at least temporarily.  We have always absorbed or compensated for this amount.

We have far more folks than this currently unemployed.  We have workers available to fill the void, we just do not have agreement that they will worked for the wages in question.  I don't see us grinding to a halt, I see the essential functions getting performed at slightly higher marginal rates (we will need to incentivize the available workforce to accept the jobs) for the time it takes to create a responsible guest worker program to create some competition for these jobs to push down the marginal rates of pay on them.

It seems to me we are talking about, by percentages, not a huge disruption, nor a long term one.  Now also the scenario is incredibly artificial since we will never have that entire workforce disappear overnight. Necessarily, unless someone has a magic wand, there would be a transition period that would ameliorate the shock of an instant transition.  We have built a straw man here that could never occur and are then arguing real world effects of that.  Well we could argue more realistic hypotheticals.  Regardless, it may be that in my ignorance in matters of the economy that I completely lack an appreciation for a phased move out of 3% of our workforce in the less skilled sector of the workforce.  Perhaps there are cascading collapses that would occur that I do not even conceptually recognize.  I am happy to read any theories or explanations you might present and give them consideration.

As for things I have been called, naive might be among the nicest.

@Ditkaless Wonders

I understand your view that deportation of those who are here illegally is desirable from the standpoint of respect for the rule of law. I disagree with your conclusion, but I am sympathetic to the logic of the underlying argument. I do think that you are missing the boat on the impact that doing so would have on the US economy, particularly as it relates to employment. As you point out, the idea of doing it instantly with the push of the button is a straw man that probably isn't altogether helpful to a reasoned discussion of the topic. I withdraw it and will instead focus on the idea of practical en masse deportation, which seems to be the underlying goal of the current Administration. 

I think the notion that the vast majority of undocumented/illegal workers do low-skilled work that makes them highly fungible with any currently unemployed person is overly simplistic. As a gross generalization, it might be correct that the average skill level of undocumented workers is slightly lower than the labor force as a whole. Or it might not. I really don't know any way to statistically judge that, since data availability on undocumented workers is understandably in fairly short supply.

I do have an interesting recent anecdote. We are currently remodeling a house and I was talking to our contractor about worker availability, which is a challenge right now in our area. Out of curiosity, I asked him about the day laborers that gather outside the local Home Depot (as they seem to almost everywhere). He said that he can't and doesn't employ them because of the risk of doing so: he could get fined and/or suffer other unpleasant legal consequences. He also said that, in our area, those guys generally ask for and get $15-$25/hour because most of them have significant skills in construction.

That anecdote illustrates two important points, I think. First is that even among the stereotypical "illegal" population, Latino men standing outside Home Depot, there are skills and abilities significantly above simply a strong back and a willingness to work for low wages. The second important point is that there are striking differences in labor market conditions in various locales. I am sure you know the latter, but it is important in this context. Unemployment in my area is low enough and specific skills are in short enough supply that guys outside of the Home Depot can ask for and get double the minimum wage, even while there are counties in my state where unemployment is close to double the national rate. 

I think a couple other misconceptions likely underpin some of your analysis of the economic impact of these workers being deported en masse. 

Doubtless you are aware of the decline in labor force participation among prime working age people over the last several years. You implicitly referenced it in your discussion of the ready supply of unemployed persons who could easily step in and take over for deportees. What isn't well known or recognized is that the majority of the decline in labor force participation isn't due to long-term inability to find gainful employment (the stereotypical discouraged worker), but rather a slew of other reasons. Chart for illsutration

Certainly there are too many discouraged workers out there, but they tend to be concentrated in communities that offer little in the way of economic dynamism. By and large, undocumented/illegal workers tend to be concentrated in areas with a high degree of economic dynamism. So there is a spatial mismatch to consider, in addition.

I don't know to what degree this assumption influences your view, but it is worth mentioning that the idea that the long-term unemployed in this country got that way because of unfair competition from illegal workers is mostly wrong. This notion is commonly held in some quarters. I believe it to be wrong, based on both data and anecdotal information/logical inference. One of the favorite arguments of supporters of protectionism in terms of international trade is that the US manufacturing sector is dying. I have seen that argument also applied to illegal immigration.

The problem with this argument is that the US manufacturing sector isn't dying, it is fairly thriving. Real (as in, inflation adjusted) output from the US manufacturing sector is either at or near an all-time high. And yet the US manufacturing sector has shed ~6-8 million jobs since 2000.  It turns out that something on the order of 85% of those jobs were lost due to technological change (automation replacing workers). That leaves the remainder that have been lost due to other reasons. Certainly it is possible some of the remaining jobs have been taken by illegal workers competing with domestic workers, but that isn't going to be a large number because enforcement of labor laws on manufacturers is structurally easier (and therefore more effective, presumably) in industries with fixed locations and a steady/permanent workforce than it is in fields like construction and agriculture. Robots, not workers in China nor illegal workers in the US, have taken the vast majority of those manufacturing jobs.

I would also point out that even now, with millions of people who are out of work and have been so a long time, employers find it very difficult to find qualified and suitable people to fill a wide variety of jobs. This is the so-called "skills gap". While lots of people understand that there is a skills gap in science, engineering and technology fields, fewer are aware that there remains a real skills gap in the trades and among skilled manufacturing workers. (Mike Rowe isn't an economist or a politician, which is probably one reason why his thinking on this topic is so clear) The latter is an area where I am certain undocumented workers are already participating to a significant degree.

So, in conclusion, en masse deportation of illegal immigrant workers is likely to be highly disruptive to industries far beyond construction and agriculture. And because of spatial considerations, the current under supply of workers with specific skill-sets, and a number of other factors, the job openings created are not likely to be easily filled by the ranks of those unemployed or not currently participating in the labor market.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

@Ditkaless Wonders

I understand your view that deportation of those who are here illegally is desirable from the standpoint of respect for the rule of law. I disagree with your conclusion, but I am sympathetic to the logic of the underlying argument. I do think that you are missing the boat on the impact that doing so would have on the US economy, particularly as it relates to employment. As you point out, the idea of doing it instantly with the push of the button is a straw man that probably isn't altogether helpful to a reasoned discussion of the topic. I withdraw it and will instead focus on the idea of practical en masse deportation, which seems to be the underlying goal of the current Administration. 

I think the notion that the vast majority of undocumented/illegal workers do low-skilled work that makes them highly fungible with any currently unemployed person is overly simplistic. As a gross generalization, it might be correct that the average skill level of undocumented workers is slightly lower than the labor force as a whole. Or it might not. I really don't know any way to statistically judge that, since data availability on undocumented workers is understandably in fairly short supply.

I do have an interesting recent anecdote. We are currently remodeling a house and I was talking to our contractor about worker availability, which is a challenge right now in our area. Out of curiosity, I asked him about the day laborers that gather outside the local Home Depot (as they seem to almost everywhere). He said that he can't and doesn't employ them because of the risk of doing so: he could get fined and/or suffer other unpleasant legal consequences. He also said that, in our area, those guys generally ask for and get $15-$25/hour because most of them have significant skills in construction.

That anecdote illustrates two important points, I think. First is that even among the stereotypical "illegal" population, Latino men standing outside Home Depot, there are skills and abilities significantly above simply a strong back and a willingness to work for low wages. The second important point is that there are striking differences in labor market conditions in various locales. I am sure you know the latter, but it is important in this context. Unemployment in my area is low enough and specific skills are in short enough supply that guys outside of the Home Depot can ask for and get double the minimum wage, even while there are counties in my state where unemployment is close to double the national rate. 

I think a couple other misconceptions likely underpin some of your analysis of the economic impact of these workers being deported en masse. 

Doubtless you are aware of the decline in labor force participation among prime working age people over the last several years. You implicitly referenced it in your discussion of the ready supply of unemployed persons who could easily step in and take over for deportees. What isn't well known or recognized is that the majority of the decline in labor force participation isn't due to long-term inability to find gainful employment (the stereotypical discouraged worker), but rather a slew of other reasons. Chart for illsutration

Certainly there are too many discouraged workers out there, but they tend to be concentrated in communities that offer little in the way of economic dynamism. By and large, undocumented/illegal workers tend to be concentrated in areas with a high degree of economic dynamism. So there is a spatial mismatch to consider, in addition.

I don't know to what degree this assumption influences your view, but it is worth mentioning that the idea that the long-term unemployed in this country got that way because of unfair competition from illegal workers is mostly wrong. This notion is commonly held in some quarters. I believe it to be wrong, based on both data and anecdotal information/logical inference. One of the favorite arguments of supporters of protectionism in terms of international trade is that the US manufacturing sector is dying. I have seen that argument also applied to illegal immigration.

The problem with this argument is that the US manufacturing sector isn't dying, it is fairly thriving. Real (as in, inflation adjusted) output from the US manufacturing sector is either at or near an all-time high. And yet the US manufacturing sector has shed ~6-8 million jobs since 2000.  It turns out that something on the order of 85% of those jobs were lost due to technological change (automation replacing workers). That leaves the remainder that have been lost due to other reasons. Certainly it is possible some of the remaining jobs have been taken by illegal workers competing with domestic workers, but that isn't going to be a large number because enforcement of labor laws on manufacturers is structurally easier (and therefore more effective, presumably) in industries with fixed locations and a steady/permanent workforce than it is in fields like construction and agriculture. Robots, not workers in China nor illegal workers in the US, have taken the vast majority of those manufacturing jobs.

I would also point out that even now, with millions of people who are out of work and have been so a long time, employers find it very difficult to find qualified and suitable people to fill a wide variety of jobs. This is the so-called "skills gap". While lots of people understand that there is a skills gap in science, engineering and technology fields, fewer are aware that there remains a real skills gap in the trades and among skilled manufacturing workers. (Mike Rowe isn't an economist or a politician, which is probably one reason why his thinking on this topic is so clear) The latter is an area where I am certain undocumented workers are already participating to a significant degree.

So, in conclusion, en masse deportation of illegal immigrant workers is likely to be highly disruptive to industries far beyond construction and agriculture. And because of spatial considerations, the current under supply of workers with specific skill-sets, and a number of other factors, the job openings created are not likely to be easily filled by the ranks of those unemployed or not currently participating in the labor market.

Thanks for the thoughtful response and the benefit of your education and experience. I will give the matter thought.  I am especially intrigued by your spatial displacement argument.

Just so I am clear, I am not against foreign workers or guest workers on visas.  If our labor force needs supplementation either temporarily, or permanently, through increased legal immigration I am not against it, I am for it.  I just do not see the benefit of the illegality.  (also, I have personal reasons for being quite fond of persons, and the culture, of our neighbors to the south.  I welcome them, if here legally.) 

Anyhow, thanks again.  I may not respond for a while as I give this thought and I have a bit of a heavy schedule today.

 

[matuski]

I don't mind anyone here that do it leagally.  Just to open your borders and let anyone come and go is irresponsible to the citizens of this country, both from a security and economic standpoint.  There really isn't a good argument against that.  The left would love to turn this nation into a third world country.

Nobody is proposing this that I can tell.

Nobody.

 

[matuski]

So, in conclusion, en masse deportation of illegal immigrant workers is likely to be highly disruptive to industries far beyond construction and agriculture. And because of spatial considerations, the current under supply of workers with specific skill-sets, and a number of other factors, the job openings created are not likely to be easily filled by the ranks of those unemployed or not currently participating in the labor market.

Great posting.

Also, this is not "likely" or theoretical in the least.  It has been plainly demonstrated time and again.  

Demonstrated in the Meat Packing industry to the extent Governors ended up begging ICE to stop.  It brought entire community economies to their knees.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

@Redman

If mass deportation of illegals were contemplated, or were a certainty to begin in 6 months and to continue through another 18 months until efforts returned to normal, and if we presumed that such efforts would, directly, and through collateral intimidation, penetrate this segment to a high degree, lets say maybe 80%, what program(s) or laws would you espouse to ameliorate the negative consequences and do you believe they would actually be able to accomplish that amelioration to a degree and if so, best guess, what degree?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am sure this has been answered, so I am happy to take a link to the post, but why is it so important to go after illegal immigrants directly?

Why do I not hear more plans to target businesses/individuals who hire illegal immigrants?  That seems to be a much easier path to removing illegal immigrants.  Start throwing individuals and company owners/executives in jail and the job market for illegal immigrants would dry up significantly.  When the job market dries up - the immigrants will leave on their own.  

When we try to tackle the drug issue - law enforcement focuses most of the attention on the suppliers, not the users.  Why not pursue the same strategy here?  Going after the immigrants just comes across as xenophobic, when you ignore other solutions to the same "problem".

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

@Redman

If mass deportation of illegals were contemplated, or were a certainty to begin in 6 months and to continue through another 18 months until efforts returned to normal, and if we presumed that such efforts would, directly, and through collateral intimidation, penetrate this segment to a high degree, lets say maybe 80%, what program(s) or laws would you espouse to ameliorate the negative consequences and do you believe they would actually be able to accomplish that amelioration to a degree and if so, best guess, what degree?

I think the only reasonable approach to this question is to provide a path to permanent legal residency, if not citizenship, for people who came here illegally some time ago and are contributing to society on a net basis (are employed, have set down roots, and are not engaged in criminal behavior other than their immigration status). What those exact tests are and how the cut-offs are determined is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Perhaps there is another category of people that almost meet the above duration of residency criteria, but not quite. Those people could apply for a permanent spot, provided they stay out of trouble and are not indigent. In the mean-time, they would be granted some sort of temporary residency status.

The remainder could be subject to deportation. 

This is a practical idea meant to minimize the disruption to the economy and families, that also addresses the intolerable aspect of having an unofficial policy of ignoring our own immigration laws. I realize some may find it unsatisfactory because it allows for forgiveness of the fact that they people broke laws to enter this country illegally. To them I would ask if they are against the concept of a statute of limitations in all criminal and civil legal matters. 

 

[JohnnyU]

Nobody is proposing this that I can tell.

Nobody.

Wrong.  Many from the left are for open borders.  Kevin De Leon (California State Senate) for starters and many many more.

 

[timschochet]

Wrong.  Many from the left are for open borders.  Kevin De Leon (California State Senate) for starters

Open borders (which I am proudly for) is a right wing position. It's a fundamental capitalist idea.

 

[JohnnyU]

Open borders (which I am proudly for) is a right wing position. It's a fundamental capitalist idea.

OMG

 

[BowieMercs]

Open borders (which I am proudly for) is a right wing position. It's a fundamental capitalist idea.

open != unrestricted 

 

[JohnnyU]

Nancy Pelosi is another for open borders and so was criminal Hillary.

 

[BowieMercs]

Nancy Pelosi is another for open borders and so was criminal Hillary.

See? Bernie was right! The dems are too far right!  

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I am sure this has been answered, so I am happy to take a link to the post, but why is it so important to go after illegal immigrants directly?

Why do I not hear more plans to target businesses/individuals who hire illegal immigrants?  That seems to be a much easier path to removing illegal immigrants.  Start throwing individuals and company owners/executives in jail and the job market for illegal immigrants would dry up significantly.  When the job market dries up - the immigrants will leave on their own.  

When we try to tackle the drug issue - law enforcement focuses most of the attention on the suppliers, not the users.  Why not pursue the same strategy here?  Going after the immigrants just comes across as xenophobic, when you ignore other solutions to the same "problem".

Good question , and I don't believe it's been brought up

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Still, we do the exercise because open and reasonable dialogue between people of different mindsets is important.  At least that's what I think.

I couldn't agree more. I just saw this thread and it is a great idea. Hopefully it will be civil and troll free. Even more important are civil discussions on single issues because the main Trump thread moves so fast that is is impossible to keep up. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think the only reasonable approach to this question is to provide a path to permanent legal residency, if not citizenship, for people who came here illegally some time ago and are contributing to society on a net basis (are employed, have set down roots, and are not engaged in criminal behavior other than their immigration status). What those exact tests are and how the cut-offs are determined is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Perhaps there is another category of people that almost meet the above duration of residency criteria, but not quite. Those people could apply for a permanent spot, provided they stay out of trouble and are not indigent. In the mean-time, they would be granted some sort of temporary residency status.

The remainder could be subject to deportation. 

This is a practical idea meant to minimize the disruption to the economy and families, that also addresses the intolerable aspect of having an unofficial policy of ignoring our own immigration laws. I realize some may find it unsatisfactory because it allows for forgiveness of the fact that they people broke laws to enter this country illegally. To them I would ask if they are against the concept of a statute of limitations in all criminal and civil legal matters. 

So you are not of the belief that a guest worker program could fill the slots from the rest of the world's potential work pool, it must involve the current illegals. Or are you saying the reasonable approach is as you have outlined because you find it morally distasteful to remove these persons. I guess I am asking if the immoral and unreasonable from your point of view could be nonetheless, from an economic standpoint, workable. 

It seems to me, though as I said I may be wrong due to lack of education in this subject matter, that there would be plenty of potential workers anxious to come in and do a great job in these openings if only we allowed it.  It seems to me these workers are replaceable.  The concept of irreplaceability is what I am not getting.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think the only reasonable approach to this question is to provide a path to permanent legal residency, if not citizenship, for people who came here illegally some time ago and are contributing to society on a net basis (are employed, have set down roots, and are not engaged in criminal behavior other than their immigration status). What those exact tests are and how the cut-offs are determined is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Perhaps there is another category of people that almost meet the above duration of residency criteria, but not quite. Those people could apply for a permanent spot, provided they stay out of trouble and are not indigent. In the mean-time, they would be granted some sort of temporary residency status.

The remainder could be subject to deportation. 

This is a practical idea meant to minimize the disruption to the economy and families, that also addresses the intolerable aspect of having an unofficial policy of ignoring our own immigration laws. I realize some may find it unsatisfactory because it allows for forgiveness of the fact that they people broke laws to enter this country illegally. To them I would ask if they are against the concept of a statute of limitations in all criminal and civil legal matters. 

I think this is an area that is under-discussed. I recognize the utility of the concept and do support it. When evidence can grow stale, degrade, memory fail, witnesses die, it makes sense, after a time to limit matters.  Also, businesses and individuals certainly benefit from certainty.

Whether this applies to immigration status, I would argue that it does not.  Still, it is a valid point or a point well open fro discussion.  If the consensus is that there should be such a limitation right it into the law, but I am not for pretending it has been there all along if it has not. 

Still, I think you do a service to this discussion by bringing this up. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Wait, I apologize.  I did say that I would leave this thread to discussion with Trump supporters as the title states.  As I am most decidedly not that.   I should honor my word and pipe down.  I do not want to suppress their voices nor detract from their arguments by being as ubiquitous as I have.  I will really try to restrain myself.  My bad.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Wait, I apologize.  I did say that I would leave this thread to discussion with Trump supporters as the title states.  As I am most decidedly not that.   I should honor my word and pipe down.  I do not want to suppress their voices nor detract from their arguments by being as ubiquitous as I have.  I will really try to restrain myself.  My bad.

nah, you're good. 

Id have to leave too. So would some others

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

So you are not of the belief that a guest worker program could fill the slots from the rest of the world's potential work pool, it must involve the current illegals. Or are you saying the reasonable approach is as you have outlined because you find it morally distasteful to remove these persons. I guess I am asking if the immoral and unreasonable from your point of view could be nonetheless, from an economic standpoint, workable. 

It seems to me, though as I said I may be wrong due to lack of education in this subject matter, that there would be plenty of potential workers anxious to come in and do a great job in these openings if only we allowed it.  It seems to me these workers are replaceable.  The concept of irreplaceability is what I am not getting.

My proposal was based on what I think is most practical and the least distasteful, given a menu of options which all have significant drawbacks.

Setting aside the my personal distaste at uprooting people who have in some cases been here 10+ years and are, for all intents and purposes, Americans: could people who are here illegally and working productively eventually be replaced by totally different people who were brought in under a guest worker program or some other regulatory regime? Sure. The key word being eventually.  The time lag and potential spatial mismatch of the new workers entering while the old ones are being rounded up and deported seems like a lot of cost and hassle to bear in order to stand on a legal principle to me, though.

 

[matuski]

Wrong.  Many from the left are for open borders.  Kevin De Leon (California State Senate) for starters and many many more.

Your definition of open borders is wrong.

 

[BowieMercs]

Wait, I apologize.  I did say that I would leave this thread to discussion with Trump supporters as the title states.  As I am most decidedly not that.   I should honor my word and pipe down.  I do not want to suppress their voices nor detract from their arguments by being as ubiquitous as I have.  I will really try to restrain myself.  My bad.

I'm not a Trump supporter either. I should recuse myself as well. We need to start a separate thread for disenfranchised moderate republicans who would vote for the devil before they would vote for Hillary  

 

[Steeler]

Wait, I apologize.  I did say that I would leave this thread to discussion with Trump supporters as the title states.  As I am most decidedly not that.   I should honor my word and pipe down.  I do not want to suppress their voices nor detract from their arguments by being as ubiquitous as I have.  I will really try to restrain myself.  My bad.

I urge you to stay in the thread regardless of how you voted in the presidential race.  The title says a "respectful discussion with Trump supporters" but we should focus on the respectful discussion aspect far more than the Trump supporters potion of the thread title.  You have been an integral part of this thread, it's been largely respectful, the discussion has been deep and nuanced, please stay!

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

Wait, I apologize.  I did say that I would leave this thread to discussion with Trump supporters as the title states.  As I am most decidedly not that.   I should honor my word and pipe down.  I do not want to suppress their voices nor detract from their arguments by being as ubiquitous as I have.  I will really try to restrain myself.  My bad.

I'm not a Trump supporter either. I should recuse myself as well. We need to start a separate thread for disenfranchised moderate republicans who would vote for the devil before they would vote for Hillary  

Hold on now...what about us self-proclaimed moderate democratic RINO's (as I am only a Repub to vote in KY primaries), who would rather play devil's advocate for DJT than vote for him?

Seriously though, this was a really great thread to read. I really learned a lot and truly appreciate the honest and sincere discussion here without all the personal attacks. I'm just sorry that I missed the meat of it as I was away for most of the week.

Solid work here! 

 

[squistion]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dreamer-deportation-daniela-vargas_us_58b8920fe4b0d2821b4cc632?oakr09x07hu5mnp14i


Dreamer Arrested After Speaking To Media Will Be Deported Without Hearing, Attorney Says



“ICE’s assertion that her detention is ‘routine’ is absurd and seems anything but,” one lawmaker said.


WASHINGTON ― A 22-year-old undocumented immigrant arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Jackson, Mississippi, on Wednesday after speaking to the media about her family’s detention is set to be deported without a court hearing, her attorney said on Thursday.
Daniela Vargas, who came to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 7 years old, previously had a work permit and deportation reprieve under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. Her DACA status expired last November, and because she was saving money for the renewal — which costs $495 — her new application wasn’t received until Feb. 10.
On Wednesday, a spokesman for ICE said Vargas would go through court proceedings to determine whether she is eligible for some type of relief, adding that the agency would take no further action until those proceedings were completed.
But Abby Peterson, Vargas’ attorney, said ICE agents told her on Thursday that they would instead pursue immediate deportation without a court hearing or bond because Vargas entered the country through the visa waiver program, which allows certain foreign nationals to enter the U.S. for under 90 days without a visa. (Argentina was previously part of the program, although it no longer is.) By using that program, her family waived some of their rights, Peterson said.
Peterson argued that the facts of Vargas’ case should be considered, including that she received DACA relief and had reapplied to the program.
“She was 7 years old at the time [she came to the U.S.],” Peterson said. “She didn’t waive those rights, her parents waived those rights. And now she’s an adult trying to assert her own rights.”
An ICE spokesman said the agency has no additional comment on Vargas’ case and directed The Huffington Post to the statement it made on Wednesday.

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

Been thinking a bit more about this thread since I read it. During my first week as house painter, I did not fit in very well. The other guys sensed I was different in some way.

However, I did bring my own music and blue tooth speaker and thus earned a little respect in that regard, but not much.

Well, one day I was playing Santana's Samba Pa Ti. When the song finished, one of the undocumented roofers came down and asked me something I could not fully understand...but it ended with "Samba Pa Ti?"

I answered, "Oui."

He replied:

Then, I shook my head and said, "Sí."

He gave me a hug right in the middle of 4 different work crews...all staring at this point.

To this day, I really do not know why he hugged me, but it is still the only hug I have ever gotten on a job site, and I have really have fit in since then.

I want this guy to stay.