The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Libertarian01]

I do not support open borders so long as America has a welfare state.

When the wave of immigrants came here from the 1880's -1920's there was no SS, SSD, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid for Dependent Children, etc. If you were truly desperate you had Jesus house, and that was about it. Immigrants worked and earned, or didn't and starved. I am mostly OK with that.

Take away the welfare state and most of my opposition to open boarders will disappear. Not all, but most.

Regards,

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

I do not support open borders so long as America has a welfare state.

When the wave of immigrants came here from the 1880's -1920's there was no SS, SSD, Medicare, Medicaid, Aid for Dependent Children, etc. If you were truly desperate you had Jesus house, and that was about it. Immigrants worked and earned, or didn't and starved. I am mostly OK with that.

Take away the welfare state and most of my opposition to open boarders will disappear. Not all, but most.

Indeed, that's part of my point.

Take away some/most/part of those things and more Americans will work and earn, or starve. As a society, we kinda have to get back to being ok with that. (Not completely, just that the existing programs are far too broad and sustaining.)

Again, I'm not a proponent of "open borders." (Or "open boarders;" houseguests need to maintain at least some privacy.) We absolutely, unequivocally have to control who is coming in/going out. That'll only get us so far, though.

 

[OakRiver]

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;
d) entered legally, worked legally, continues to work illegally, stays illegally;
e) 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?

Illegal immigrant; anyone who is present within the United States who does not have a lawful reason to be. This includes people who entered unlawfully, or those who entered legally but their permission to remain has lapsed (past their 90 days of visa waiver, expiration of visa, etc.)

So in your examples the only lawful immigrant is (d), but their legal status may be in jeopardy in the event their unlawful employment is revealed to ICE.

 

[OakRiver]

When discussing immigration and illegal immigrants one aspect that is often overlooked is that of moral turpitude, which “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one's fellow man or society in general.”

In essence an immigrant wishing to live in the United States must be of good moral character, and must be prepared to act according to the rules of our society. As such it would be my argument that anyone who has entered the country unlawfully does not meet the moral turpitude requirement due to their refusal to abide by the laws of the United States shows that they have acted "contrary to the rules of. . . society in general", and as such should be ineligible for amnesty. Should such a person or persons wish to become a part of American society then they should avail themselves of the legal mechanisms which would allow this to happen.

 

[T.Lex]

(Sorry, but I screwed up the paragraph list, so fixed it.)

Illegal immigrant; anyone who is present within the United States who does not have a lawful reason to be. This includes people who entered unlawfully, or those who entered legally but their permission to remain has lapsed (past their 90 days of visa waiver, expiration of visa, etc.)

So in your examples the only lawful immigrant is (d), but their legal status may be in jeopardy in the event their unlawful employment is revealed to ICE.

What about (e)? Someone who's overstayed their visa (knowingly or not) but has married a US citizen. They may be working legitimately (from their employer's perspective).

Regardless, is either (d) or (e) subject to deportation?

A smaller subset of people fit into an entirely different category: adoptions of foreign kids not registered with INS/ICE before the person turns 16 (or 18 - I can't remember exactly). There was (I assume still is) a set of bureaucratic steps that had to be taken for the child to be an actual citizen. Yet, the American parents could use the adopted birth certificate to get a SSN and raise the kid USian.

Back in the 1980s-90s, adoption groups were big on foreign adoptions, but many of them just shrugged and told the adopting parents to check with a lawyer. Most lawyers weren't necessarily familiar with the process, if the family even checked.

I have no idea how many of those kids, now adults, are out there, but the number is non-zero. Much higher than non-zero. These people are either illegal (e) or (f), although arguably (c) or (d).

 

[T.Lex]

When discussing immigration and illegal immigrants one aspect that is often overlooked is that of moral turpitude, which “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one's fellow man or society in general.”

In essence an immigrant wishing to live in the United States must be of good moral character, and must be prepared to act according to the rules of our society. As such it would be my argument that anyone who has entered the country unlawfully does not meet the moral turpitude requirement due to their refusal to abide by the laws of the United States shows that they have acted "contrary to the rules of. . . society in general", and as such should be ineligible for amnesty. Should such a person or persons wish to become a part of American society then they should avail themselves of the legal mechanisms which would allow this to happen.

First, "moral turpitude" clauses are generally disfavored nowadays. WAY too hard to nail down. In the criminal context, it gets worse.

Second, you really think that entering America in the hope of a better life is "inherently base, vile, or depraved" in the same sense as child pornography? The CIMT deportation thing is important, but illegal entry doesn't strike me as the same level of arson or rape.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

That may​ have happened a time or two.

 

[OakRiver]

Anyone who acts in a manner that conflicts with their permission to reside in the United States may be subject to intervention by ICE - including those present unlawfully within the United States who are married to a US citizen. That includes (d) and (e), and such individuals may be deported and barred from re-entry, as well as facing complications if they seek to adjust their status from immigrant to naturalized citizen.

 

[T.Lex]

Anyone who acts in a manner that conflicts with their permission to reside in the United States may be subject to intervention by ICE - including those present unlawfully within the United States who are married to a US citizen. That includes (d) and (e), and such individuals may be deported and barred from re-entry, as well as facing complications if they seek to adjust their status from immigrant to naturalized citizen.

Yes. All of that is true.

Do you think it important to change that, or continue to ignore/not enforce it?

 

[OakRiver]

First, "moral turpitude" clauses are generally disfavored nowadays. WAY too hard to nail down. In the criminal context, it gets worse.

Second, you really think that entering America in the hope of a better life is "inherently base, vile, or depraved" in the same sense as child pornography? The CIMT deportation thing is important, but illegal entry doesn't strike me as the same level of arson or rape.

It is still a requirement of US immigration law until such times as Congress removes that requirement.

Also I do not recall making the argument that illegal immigration was "the same level as arson or rape". What I did say was that illegal immigration was contrary to the rules of society, and one cannot claim to be of good moral character whilst flouting the rules of the society in which they reside.

 

[OakRiver]

Yes. All of that is true.

Do you think it important to change that, or continue to ignore/not enforce it?

We are a nation of laws, and one of the features of that is that all are equal before the law. Selective enforcement of the law runs contrary to that principle.

 

[T.Lex]

It is still a requirement of US immigration law until such times as Congress removes that requirement.

But this is about equivocation.

Also I do not recall making the argument that illegal immigration was "the same level as arson or rape". What I did say was that illegal immigration was contrary to the rules of society

Traditionally, moral turpitude is "base, vile, or depraved." That is, things like sexual misconduct, etc. Not even run of the mill misconduct. VILE misconduct.

In the immigration context, there's a bit of a different context - one that you may not be familiar with. Aliens can commit certain crimes and not be deported. Other crimes, Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT) do allow for deportation, regardless of status. These CIMT crimes include arson, robbery, fraud, etc. Generally things that we think of as felonies.

Personally, I do not see a victimless crime like illegal entry to be on the same level.

, and one cannot claim to be of good moral character whilst flouting the rules of the society in which they reside.

Do you go faster than the speed limit?

We are a nation of laws, and one of the features of that is that all are equal before the law. Selective enforcement of the law runs contrary to that principle.

In the US, there is prosecutorial discretion. Not every unlawful act deserves the full weight of the executive and judicial branch. "Selective enforcement" is part and parcel of being in a law enforcement position.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

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.

Gain control of the border, heavily fine and prosecute illegal EMPLOYERS, open the spigot of legal immigration and work permits. Why is amnesty-in-place necessary?

Edited to add: If you are proposing that those who previously violated only the immigration laws would be allowed to get in line with everyone else, then I don't really have a problem with that... as long as they apply for ENTRY into the country from their home country. I.e. outside the US, not while here CURRENTLY violating US law.

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.

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.

And, I would equate it too why plumbers are expensive... at a certain level of pay, someone is willing to go in knee-deep... to do what others aren't willing to do.

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

I take it as a given that if it weren't for the ~12 million illegal immigrants present in this country, LEGAL immigration would be higher, if only fractionally, not necessarily 12 million higher. How much more is very much speculation, but I think it would be hard to argue that it wouldn't lead to more legal immigration.

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.)

Never trust lawyers with math! Lol!

$10k times 10 million would be $100 billion or about 0.6% of the $16.7 T US GDP.

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.

I think you are discounting the fact that allowing LEGAL immigrants to enter with work permits erases even this modest impact on the economy (as does returning to 3% annual GDP growth). So would increased wages to entice the currently unemployed to do this work. Honestly, either of those would be at a higher wage than the illegally low pay illegals must accept - - - resulting in net positive economic growth... even without amnesty.

 

[tmcallister]

The Democratic Liberal Left are so upset

 

[T.Lex]

Gain control of the border, heavily fine and prosecute illegal EMPLOYERS, open the spigot of legal immigration and work permits. Why is amnesty-in-place necessary?

- Border control: amnesty would be for the people already here, so this doesn't apply.
- Employer punishment: a significant number of "illegal" (depending on the definition) employees have employers that don't know. I'm not a fan of punishing employers who don't know their employees shouldn't be employed.
- Open legal immigration and work permits: again, this is for people already not here.

Amnesty is for those who these other things don't really apply to.

Plus, there's the adoption issue. I haven't seen numbers on this on a national level. I just know that if I've run across this - and I don't even really do this work - then it is a statistically meaningful number.

Never trust lawyers with math! Lol!

I think we have a consensus.

$10k times 10 million would be $100 billion or about 0.6% of the $16.7 T US GDP.

$100B is a big number that would be lost. And that's not counting the cost to actually get them out. I don't see average public assistance American picking up the slack.

I think you are discounting the fact that allowing LEGAL immigrants to enter with work permits erases even this modest impact on the economy (as does returning to 3% annual GDP growth). So would increased wages to entice the currently unemployed to do this work. Honestly, either of those would be at a higher wage than the illegally low pay illegals must accept - - - resulting in net positive economic growth... even without amnesty.

I'm open to greater work permits. That can certainly be part of it. But, the administration of it becomes another issue that brings us right back to where we are.

Would it be a 90-day work permit? Unlimited duration? H-1B type, employer specific? What, then, when people over-stay? I don't mean those questions to be confrontational. Just making sure I understand your proposal.

 

[BugI02]

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.



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.


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.


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.

Sigh. For a different perspective, how would you feel if someone were arguing against strict enforcement of a tenet of Catholic theology, using the argument that millions were already violating it and surely The Church could see that it would be easier and cheaper to come to some accommodation with the sinners and modify its theology?

That's how we feel about your arguments in favor of lax border integrity

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Democratic Liberal Left are so upset

How does the Democratic Conservative Right feel?

Kut (helps with your quest to 50)

 

[T.Lex]

Sigh. For a different perspective, how would you feel if someone were arguing against strict enforcement of a tenet of Catholic theology, using the argument that millions were already violating it and surely The Church could see that it would be easier and cheaper to come to some accomodation with the sinners and modify its theology?

That's how we feel about your arguments in favor of lax border integrity

WTF, dude? I thought you were back to reading my posts.

I'm the one that said "shoot to kill" was on the table for border crossers.

Besides, people arguing against strict enforcement of dogma is just another Catholic bible study in America.

Now, since it appears you're arguing that US laws are sacrosanct, I'll just ask you if you exceed the speed limit.

 

[BugI02]

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?

g) All of the above √

 

[indiucky]

How does the Democratic Conservative Right feel?

Kut (helps with your quest to 50)

Alpo seems to be hanging in pretty good....