The President Trump Immigration Thread

[BugI02]

I'll admit I don't know a lot about TSA, except the frequent examples on social media where they detain and body-cavity search old ladies, or flunk security tests. Frankly, as far as profiling, I don't want them profiling races specifically. I am okay with establishing likely visual and behavioral identifiers to use to determine who should be scrutinized more. Surely some behaviors make some people more scrutiny-worthy than the 90 year old woman dressed like and acting like grandma.

Jamil (wonders how fond kut is of his worldview)

TSA?s New Profiling Program | Travel + Leisure

Using a simplified version of behavioral profiling

 

[Twangbanger]

...To sidetrack for a minute, there's a conservativism issue: what makes someone's immigration status your concern? (Not directly at you, specifically, Twangbanger, but the generic INGO-you.) Are they taking "your" job that you're not entitled to anyway? Are they keeping the labor rate low so you don't make "what you deserve"? Aren't you a special snowflake. None of those things are promised (other than minimum wage)...

It's not a sidetrack at all. It's actually the heart of the issue. Perhaps we've all been force-fed the current "conservative" position on immigration (which is actually Libertarian) by opinion-makers such as National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial board for such a long time, that some of us may have eventually lost the ability to discern what the difference between Libertarianism and Conservatism actually is on certain issues.

Conservatism, strictly speaking, is not a Kumbaya, live-and-let-live philosophy (although the WSJ editorial board and your Wednesday night Catholic mens' group might have you think it is). It means to conserve that which is traditionally great about America, using government force and policies if needed, and with the defining and securing of our national borders included among the list of services which a properly-functioning Federal Government is supposed to provide.

The negation of that, open borders (the unspoken appendix to the WSJ's "free minds and free markets"), is not associated with preserving what is traditionally great about America - which is the tradition of periods of controlled immigration, punctuated by periods of assimilation. Open Borders is not Conservative; so there's your "conservatism issue."

Which brings us more pointedly to the subject of Amnesty:

Why the angst about amnesty? I mean, in conservative terms, what business is it of yours what someone's immigration status is?...

...So, continuing the above discussion a bit further: do you remember the crisis with people in Central and South America wrapping up their children and sending them to arrive uninvited on the doorstep of Uncle Sam? Is that the sort of humanitarian outcome we want our policies to help create? Because: that was being done in response to a perceived softening of the Obama Administration's immigration policy, in this case with regard to deportation. "Softness" begets the expectation of more softness. At the merest sign of permissiveness on the part of the U.S. government, the people come in droves. And when it comes to things like Amnesty, they understand that that which a nation can summon the political will to do one time...it can summon the will to do again. Because the forces in play and the emotional inertia are the same. Enacting Amnesty, even just seriously talking about it, has the same effect as the porous border: it encourages more people to come. (And those people do not necessarily listen when you insert your little technocratic qualifications such as, it's "only for people who have put down roots," etc.)

So there's your angst.

Perhaps "unlimited" holds a different meaning to me. Can you point me to the direction of the Democrat that has called for this type of immigration? ...Kut (thinks we're dealing with a creative chronology)

Well, there was Hillary Clinton (I think she qualifies as a Democrat), who was fingered by Wikileaks as having told a group of donors, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..." A claim from which, for some reason, she felt the need to back-pedal furiously, prior to losing the election and touching off the current wave of snowflake hysteria.

Twang (suspects maybe you only see what you want to see)

 

[printcraft]

World views being set on fire....

 

[jamil]

TSA?s New Profiling Program | Travel + Leisure

Using a simplified version of behavioral profiling

If it works. I'm okay with that.

 

[jamil]

It's not a sidetrack at all. It's actually the heart of the issue. Perhaps we've all been force-fed the current "conservative" position on immigration (which is actually Libertarian) by opinion-makers such as National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial board for such a long time, that some of us may have eventually lost the ability to discern what the difference between Libertarianism and Conservatism actually is on certain issues.

Conservatism, strictly speaking, is not a Kumbaya, live-and-let-live philosophy (although the WSJ editorial board and your Wednesday night Catholic mens' group might have you think it is). It means to conserve that which is traditionally great about America, using government force and policies if needed, and with the defining and securing of our national borders included among the list of services which a properly-functioning Federal Government is supposed to provide.

The negation of that, open borders (the unspoken appendix to the WSJ's "free minds and free markets"), is not associated with preserving what is traditionally great about America - which is the tradition of periods of controlled immigration, punctuated by periods of assimilation. Open Borders is not Conservative; so there's your "conservatism issue."

Which brings us more pointedly to the subject of Amnesty:



...So, continuing the above discussion a bit further: do you remember the crisis with people in Central and South America wrapping up their children and sending them to arrive uninvited on the doorstep of Uncle Sam? Is that the sort of humanitarian outcome we want our policies to help create? Because: that was being done in response to a perceived softening of the Obama Administration's immigration policy, in this case with regard to deportation. "Softness" begets the expectation of more softness. At the merest sign of permissiveness on the part of the U.S. government, the people come in droves. And when it comes to things like Amnesty, they understand that that which a nation can summon the political will to do one time...it can summon the will to do again. Because the forces in play and the emotional inertia are the same. Enacting Amnesty, even just seriously talking about it, has the same effect as the porous border: it encourages more people to come. (And those people do not necessarily listen when you insert your little technocratic qualifications such as, it's "only for people who have put down roots," etc.)

So there's your angst.



Well, there was Hillary Clinton (I think she qualifies as a Democrat), who was fingered by Wikileaks as having told a group of donors, "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders..." A claim from which, for some reason, she felt the need to back-pedal furiously, prior to losing the election and touching off the current wave of snowflake hysteria.

Twang (suspects maybe you only see what you want to see)

Just a couple of points. While I agree with the live-n-let-live, it's not kumbaya. Do what you want but I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand. Also, this is one area where I part company with libertarians. I don't agree with open boarders, and I don't agree with amnesty. Gary Johnson needed to be punched square in the face when he got ****ty about calling them illegals.

If we had a "libertarian" free market society and the rest of the world were the same, we would have open boarders, and I think that'd be peachy. But we don't. We have a welfare state. And all the rest of the world isn't friendly. So we need boarders, and we need to protect them, which means we keep people out who aren't here legally.

As far as amnesty, do we have rule of law or not? It's not fair to the people who obey the law to let everyone who didn't cut in line.

 

[jbombelli]

To me, amnesty should mean people here illegally should be allowed a certain amount of time to start the process of being here legally, or they get deported at the end of that time.

 

[T.Lex]

It's not a sidetrack at all. It's actually the heart of the issue. Perhaps we've all been force-fed the current "conservative" position on immigration (which is actually Libertarian) by opinion-makers such as National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial board for such a long time, that some of us may have eventually lost the ability to discern what the difference between Libertarianism and Conservatism actually is on certain issues.

Well, I come by my conservativism naturally, not the product of an editorial board.

Conservatism, strictly speaking, is not a Kumbaya, live-and-let-live philosophy (although the WSJ editorial board and your Wednesday night Catholic mens' group might have you think it is).

Attempted ad hom, swing and a miss....

It means to conserve that which is traditionally great about America, using government force and policies if needed, and with the defining and securing of our national borders included among the list of services which a properly-functioning Federal Government is supposed to provide.

Which is unrelated to conservativism or liberalism. Looks like you're the one adopting the MSM version of these things.

The negation of that, open borders (the unspoken appendix to the WSJ's "free minds and free markets"), is not associated with preserving what is traditionally great about America - which is the tradition of periods of controlled immigration, punctuated by periods of assimilation. Open Borders is not Conservative; so there's your "conservatism issue."

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Or are you arguing with someone else?

Speaking of non-kumbaya, I'm the one talking about cutting public assistance, which is part of this immigration problem in a couple ways.

Which brings us more pointedly to the subject of Amnesty:

...So, continuing the above discussion a bit further: do you remember the crisis with people in Central and South America wrapping up their children and sending them to arrive uninvited on the doorstep of Uncle Sam?

What "crisis"? Again, that was a MSM construct. Which goes to the headline risk that I brought up and you appear to ignore. Do you have a cite for the hundreds of thousands of instances of that happening, or do you have very low hurdle to make a "crisis."

Is that the sort of humanitarian outcome we want our policies to help create? Because: that was being done in response to a perceived softening of the Obama Administration's immigration policy, in this case with regard to deportation. "Softness" begets the expectation of more softness. At the merest sign of permissiveness on the part of the U.S. government, the people come in droves.

Newsflash: that will happen anyway. We need to have better bottlenecks, chokepoints, and controls. There's no argument there. But where is the support for this waxing and waning of illegal immigration based on policy. I haven't seen it. In fact, from what I've seen, it is more tied to the economy.

But, at a policy level, we WANT people to want to come here. It means we have a high standard of living, solid (relatively) economy, and hope. Sometimes this immigration discussion can miss the point that the reasons people want to come here is that the US is a good place to be. When people stop wanting to come here, it means we've won the race to the bottom.

And when it comes to things like Amnesty, they understand that that which a nation can summon the political will to do one time...it can summon the will to do again. Because the forces in play and the emotional inertia are the same. Enacting Amnesty, even just seriously talking about it,

Got it. Some solutions are verboten to even discuss.

has the same effect as the porous border: it encourages more people to come. (And those people do not necessarily listen when you insert your little technocratic qualifications such as, it's "only for people who have put down roots," etc.)

So there's your angst.

I still don't get it. Do-gooder angst about people breaking rules?

How do you feel about speed limits?

I get it. You want to ignore the people who entered without visas or overstayed their visas. But there's several million of them. Ignoring that problem is part of the current problem.

To me, amnesty should mean people here illegally should be allowed a certain amount of time to start the process of being here legally, or they get deported at the end of that time.

That's what the prior program was, basically. I'd be ok with that.

 

[jbombelli]

Except the prior program then lacked the needed follow through.

 

[T.Lex]

Except the prior program then lacked the needed follow through.

This is totally a nit to pick, but to my thinking, "follow through" isn't the right framework to describe it. More like parallel tracks. Securing the borders AND amnesty, at the same time. There wasn't really the commitment to securing the borders by the time Clinton was POTUS. (I may have the timing wrong, but that's my recollection.)

One of the tracks just stopped. Which makes for an awkward railroad.

But, that doesn't mean that the concept was flawed, just the execution. It certainly seems like the commitment is there now for securing the borders, so that's different.

Of course, I think we have an order of magnitude more illegal immigrants now than when the prior amnesty was enacted. Quantity has a quality all its own.

 

[jbombelli]

The concept was good, the execution was Intentionally flawed. There is no reason to believe they won't do exactly the same thing again. Therein lies the problem.

 

[OakRiver]

If you want to reduce illegal immigration it is very simple. The majority of illegal immigrants are economic migrants, anyone fleeing actual persecution can present themselves to a DHS Agent and ake a claim for asylum/refugee status, which will then be adjudicated upon.

To restrict the flow of illegal immigration for economic purposes all it takes is expanding the e-verify program, and in tandem financial/criminal penalties for the owners of businesses or hiring managers that hire illegal immigrants. Right now the risk/reward is in favor of businesses exploiting vulnerable illegal immigrants, but if that changes and each illegal immigrant that is found working for your company is a $100,000 fine, six months in Federal Prison for every 5 illegal immigrants, and an investigation into your business's financials by the IRS then that re-adjusts the risk/reward so hiring illegal immigrants is not as rewarding as the current state of affairs. With this lack of demand then coyotes have less reason to supply this unlawful source of labor.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

LOL

My wife's family is French. I know very well baguettes. The riskier item would've been the cheese you were going to have with it. Some of that is VERY strong.

If I thought I could get a kilo of Camembert through, I'd be all over that... nothing close is available stateside.

The point, though, is they had a reason to detain you. Something on the x-ray didn't look right. That's reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS).

Now, coming into the country, they can administratively search you for no reason. But really, how long would that take? Max 15 mins? Your identity should not be an issue, since you (probably) have a passport and drivers license/other proof of residency.

What possible justification, without RAS, is there for holding a US citizen for an hour?

Note that the TSA official said it was done in "less than an hour". For all we know, she was randomly flagged for hand search of her luggage and spent a good part of that time standing in line. Customs never has been what you might call "speedy". The search I relayed took 15 minutes looking for SOMETHING SPECIFIC... thankfully they weren't searching and inventorying piece-by-piece because I had 3 bottles of wine and a bottle of cognac (homemade at that), not the maximum two! Lol! Whew!

Bottom line is that she has not been forthcoming with details, and those few she has put forward, turned out to be false, and IMO, intentionally misleading.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Why the angst about amnesty? I mean, in conservative terms, what business is it of yours what someone's immigration status is?

Amnesty, or a path to it, would further diminish the influence of the worker-traffickers. Without it, there will still be a large well of leveragable labor for them.

I think you've turned it on it's head. Instead of having to defend opposition to amnesty, others should be required to defend why amnesty is the ONLY way. Answer, it's not. Simply issuing work permits to those who've followed the rules and applied legally would solve the problem without rewarding lawbreakers by moving them to the head of the line. Illegal entry is a crime with penalties of imprisonment, fines and deportment. Don't like the laws, then change them, but don't turn the law on it's head.

Some of the argument against illegal immigration is that the law-breaking employers know the status and use it to pay illegally low wages (or charge them exorbitantly to be hauled in horse trailers). So, part of the argument is that low skilled Americans suffer lower, stagnate wages than would otherwise be the case. IMO, it's hard if not impossible to disprove that.

HOWEVER, I don't think that general harm is a "greatest harm". The greatest harm is that without the illegal immigrantion, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others who sought to emigrate legally have lost out. To me, the only acceptable solutions REWARD those who follow the law by doing it the right way and PENALIZE those who break the law, cheat the system and others.

 

[jamil]

To me, amnesty should mean people here illegally should be allowed a certain amount of time to start the process of being here legally, or they get deported at the end of that time.

I think I'm good with that.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

To restrict the flow of illegal immigration for economic purposes all it takes is expanding the e-verify program, and in tandem financial/criminal penalties for the owners of businesses or hiring managers that hire illegal immigrants. Right now the risk/reward is in favor of businesses exploiting vulnerable illegal immigrants, but if that changes and each illegal immigrant that is found working for your company is a $100,000 fine, six months in Federal Prison for every 5 illegal immigrants, and an investigation into your business's financials by the IRS then that re-adjusts the risk/reward so hiring illegal immigrants is not as rewarding as the current state of affairs. With this lack of demand then coyotes have less reason to supply this unlawful source of labor.

^^^ THIS ^^^

 

[T.Lex]

I think you've turned it on it's head. Instead of having to defend opposition to amnesty, others should be required to defend why amnesty is the ONLY way.

Hold up, hoss. No one I know is saying that. Anti-amnesty people - I guess including you - won't even allow it to be part of the solution. That's rejecting reality - both economic and political.

Simply issuing work permits to those who've followed the rules and applied legally would solve the problem without rewarding lawbreakers by moving them to the head of the line. Illegal entry is a crime with penalties of imprisonment, fines and deportment.

So's theft. (Well, not the deportation.) But a one-time offender is more likely to get a diversion and no conviction than anything else. If prosecuted at all.

That's basically what the old amnesty provision was. A diversion fee.

Some of the argument against illegal immigration is that the law-breaking employers know the status and use it to pay illegally low wages (or charge them exorbitantly to be hauled in horse trailers). So, part of the argument is that low skilled Americans suffer lower, stagnate wages than would otherwise be the case. IMO, it's hard if not impossible to disprove that.

I think the counterargument is to look at the real unemployment numbers. The Americans that used to have no choice but to work at the low wage/high labor jobs don't work. They're part of the public assistance system, because its WAY easier.

HOWEVER, I don't think that general harm is a "greatest harm". The greatest harm is that without the illegal immigrantion, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others who sought to emigrate legally have lost out.

Where does this number come from - people millions of people who've applied and are waiting?

Going back to my point about economic and political realities.

Some estimate put the number of illegal immigrants who've been here 10+ years at about 5M.
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Economically, how in the world do we justify the millions (billions) of dollars to: a) find them; b) hold them for the administrative review; c) deport them. Not to mention the lost revenue for the places employing these people, some of whom the employers may not even know about. Not all of these "illegals" are part of a black market economy. In fact, the numbers we're talking, my sense is that the vast majority are the overstayed-visa types who have real SSNs, real withholdings, and may not even realize the problem. If we use 10M as the number of illegal aliens, and the average income is $10k (including kids, who make next to nothing), then you're still at a conservative 10,000,000,000,000 hit to the gray market economy. (I think. Someone check my math.)

Politically, the American people would not support that. Trump's election notwithstanding, the tide would turn on this VERY quickly. You think the immigration order was a cluster of implementation? Try something on that scale.

Like it or not, amnesty has to be part of a solution. So, we might as well discuss it instead of rejecting it wholly.

 

[actaeon277]

Just a couple of points. While I agree with the live-n-let-live, it's not kumbaya. Do what you want but I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand. Also, this is one area where I part company with libertarians. I don't agree with open boarders, and I don't agree with amnesty. Gary Johnson needed to be punched square in the face when he got ****ty about calling them illegals.

If we had a "libertarian" free market society and the rest of the world were the same, we would have open boarders, and I think that'd be peachy. But we don't. We have a welfare state. And all the rest of the world isn't friendly. So we need boarders, and we need to protect them, which means we keep people out who aren't here legally.

As far as amnesty, do we have rule of law or not? It's not fair to the people who obey the law to let everyone who didn't cut in line.

 

[HoughMade]

...Like it or not, amnesty has to be part of a solution. So, we might as well discuss it instead of rejecting it wholly.

Of course it does. Solving problems often involves things that seem ugly from a "it just ain't right" perspective.

 

[T.Lex]

Just a couple of points. While I agree with the live-n-let-live, it's not kumbaya. Do what you want but I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand. Also, this is one area where I part company with libertarians. I don't agree with open boarders, and I don't agree with amnesty. Gary Johnson needed to be punched square in the face when he got ****ty about calling them illegals.

If we had a "libertarian" free market society and the rest of the world were the same, we would have open boarders, and I think that'd be peachy. But we don't. We have a welfare state. And all the rest of the world isn't friendly. So we need boarders, and we need to protect them, which means we keep people out who aren't here legally.

As far as amnesty, do we have rule of law or not? It's not fair to the people who obey the law to let everyone who didn't cut in line.

If you want to reduce illegal immigration it is very simple. The majority of illegal immigrants are economic migrants, anyone fleeing actual persecution can present themselves to a DHS Agent and ake a claim for asylum/refugee status, which will then be adjudicated upon.

To restrict the flow of illegal immigration for economic purposes all it takes is expanding the e-verify program, and in tandem financial/criminal penalties for the owners of businesses or hiring managers that hire illegal immigrants. Right now the risk/reward is in favor of businesses exploiting vulnerable illegal immigrants, but if that changes and each illegal immigrant that is found working for your company is a $100,000 fine, six months in Federal Prison for every 5 illegal immigrants, and an investigation into your business's financials by the IRS then that re-adjusts the risk/reward so hiring illegal immigrants is not as rewarding as the current state of affairs. With this lack of demand then coyotes have less reason to supply this unlawful source of labor.

So, I guess this is where I play lawyer and ask about definitions.

Does the phrase "illegal" here mean:
a) entered illegally, works illegally, stays illegally;
b) entered illegally, works illegally, stays legally;
c) entered legally, works illegally, stays illegally;
d) entered legally, works illegally, stays legally;
e) entered legally, worked legally, continues to work illegally, stays illegally;
f) entered legally, worked legally, continues to work illegally, stays legally;

I think we all agree that (a) is the definition most people think of. Also, this assumes no criminal convictions.

In my limited experience though, especially (b), (d), (e) where they've married a US citizen and/or had kids here, it becomes a much trickier question.

Particularly when it is possible - intentionally or unintentionally - to continue working without the proper forms being filed with the immigration groups.

So, INGO, can we reach a consensus on what "illegal immigrant" means?

 

[T.Lex]

Of course it does. Solving problems often involves things that seem ugly from a "it just ain't right" perspective.

You say that as if you've had to explain to a client why settling a case is a better option than fighting it righteously.