The President Trump Immigration Thread

[actaeon277]

 

[Mongo59]

All that came out of that is they agreed to put a Preparation H dispenser in the foyer...

 

[Denny347]

A one time cost of $5.7 Billion dollars to help solve a problem that costs a net $116 Billion per year at all levels of government? My math says that if it is "only" 5% effective, it would yield a 100% return each and every year. Investment-wise, that's a no-brainer.

To me, that math changes the debate to require those opposed to any enhancements to the physical barrier to make their case that it would be 0% effective.

Would that money be an even better bang for our buck if it was used to remove the DRAW for the illegals. If companies were too scared to hire them, they'd sure be less likely to take the risk. Sure, there will always be some illegal immigrant movement but that would be a HUGE blow. If we build a barrier but don't address the draw, the problem will still exist. Tunnel building will become a new profession. It pretty much is now.

as i said.....if the state can take land for a interstate the Feds can take land for a wall.....

The government pays them what the land is worth and I'm sure there wouldn't be much negative to say about that.

This is disingenuous, T. Lex. The wall is only part of what Trump wants, and he mostly wants it because once built, it is not so easy for some other president to undo. It must be torn down rather than simply reprioritized

It is merely the most visible part of the fight (currently) and in no way can Trump's advocacy be parsed as merely adopting what the Democrats (said) they wanted

But recall from the early failed DACA negotiations, there are four things Trump wants - you know, just like there are four rules for safe gun handling ()

1) The Wall - physical barrier backed up by increased resources, technology and personnel to discourage illegal immigration at the border

2) An end to chain migration

3) A skills-based visa system where what determines a persons approval as an emigre is based on what they have to offer the country - you know, like the one Canada and many other countries already have

4) An end to the visa lottery

2,3,and 4 are massively synergistic. Combine them with e-verify and no path to citizenship and they will make a huge dent in border jumping

But nothing about employment enforcement? Huge food companies hire so many illegals but politicians have no stomach to address that.

Not clear about the National Emergency thing. If it truly IS a NE...just declare it now. No waiting or posturing. If it's not, then stop threatening it. It either IS or it ISN'T...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Would that money be an even better bang for our buck if it was used to remove the DRAW for the illegals. If companies were too scared to hire them, they'd sure be less likely to take the risk. Sure, there will always be some illegal immigrant movement but that would be a HUGE blow. If we build a barrier but don't address the draw, the problem will still exist. Tunnel building will become a new profession. It pretty much is now.

Denny, perhaps you missed this part of my post:

BTW, I think the MOST effective single mechanism would be eVerify. Trump does not need a new law to make eVerify "de facto" mandatory. Start by fining and prosecuting any employer that employs illegals and doesn't use eVerify. File in court that avoiding eVerify indicates "intent". But, even that, alone, does not "solve" the problem.

Many, including me, have stated that eVerify needs to be required (like I-9) documentation, which presumably requires new law. Or does it? Generally, yes, but I see a way to be pretty effective in clamping down even under current law.

First off, employing an illegal carries a pretty measly fine of $375 per employee for first offense, increasing to $1,600 on 3rd and subsequent. Not very hefty, and IMO, not much of a deterrent. HOWEVER, if the employer engages in a "pattern and practice" of employing illegals, then that becomes a criminal offense with $3000 and 6 months in prison PER employee! So, suddenly, an employer with 100 illegal employees is facing $300,000 in fines and 50 years possible of possible prison sentences. Tack on filing (or not filing) fraudulent I-9s, knowingly providing fraudulent documents, and payroll violations for not paying employees accurately, etc, etc, and I would think a smart prosecutor could double that by throwing the book at the violator, now we are talking $600,000 and 100 years of potential prison time.

Now we're talking some serious consequences.

Second, charge EVERYONE responsible. CEO/President of the company? Yup. CFO/accountant? Yup. HR head? Yup. HR anybody involved in hiring? Yup. Plant manager? Yup. Crew foreman/supervisor? Yup.

Third, pile on conspiracy charges. They all knew and acted in concert. Perhaps we are now up to a $1 Million fine for each individual involved in the conspiracy and 200 years in potential prison time. (probably more like 2-5 years of "real" time serving concurrently, but still scary for the average person)

Fourth, make the opening "salvos" in an area with "friendly" courts, i.e. not California or anywhere under the 9th circuit.

Finally, and this is key, make it clear that the employer could have easily avoided this by using eVerify but PURPOSEFULLY avoided eVerify because they knew doing so would have prevented them from hiring illegals.

Boom... de facto mandatory eVerify.

tl;dr: The "regular" fines for employing illegals are minuscule and ineffective. However, prosecuting large employers as a conspiracy, and throwing the book at violators, adds real teeth. Go after those who avoid eVerify because they intend to hire large numbers of illegals.

 

[T.Lex]

Curious to know how one can posit enforcing the border as somehow "expanding" federal "authority"...unless you never believed it should have been done in the first place.

You did not say "budget." You said "authority."

...But then, the concept of what the federal government should, and should not be doing, can be pretty mercurial if not supported by some consistent idea of what limited government actually is.
​

​

I actually think we're roughly on the same side on this, when you read/quote the entirety of my posts. (I will concede I may not have been clear enough in differentiating where certain concepts were responsive to something.)

My response to expanding federal authority is directed at DoggyDaddy's intermingling of local law enforcement (in the vein of "Sanctuary Cities") with the federal authority to enforce immigration laws.

The "authority" and "budget" issues are linked. If we want to continue with federal-centric authority to enforce immigration laws, we'll need more dollars for agents and investigations and prosecutors and judges and jails/detention facilities. If we want to delegate more to local authorities - or require/induce them to participate - there will need to be tweaks to the legal framework to allow that to happen. It'll also probably require budgeting, because the best way to get local authorities to do what the feds want (like speed limits) is to tie the actions to grants/subsidies.

I am absolutely in favor of limited government. Of course, one of the core roles is to control our borders and immigration policy (IMHO). Generally, though, the market is better sorting out many things that the gov't wants to meddle in.

 

[mmpsteve]

[/LEFT]
I actually think we're roughly on the same side on this, when you read/quote the entirety of my posts. (I will concede I may not have been clear enough in differentiating where certain concepts were responsive to something.)

My response to expanding federal authority is directed at DoggyDaddy's intermingling of local law enforcement (in the vein of "Sanctuary Cities") with the federal authority to enforce immigration laws.

The "authority" and "budget" issues are linked. If we want to continue with federal-centric authority to enforce immigration laws, we'll need more dollars for agents and investigations and prosecutors and judges and jails/detention facilities. If we want to delegate more to local authorities - or require/induce them to participate - there will need to be tweaks to the legal framework to allow that to happen. It'll also probably require budgeting, because the best way to get local authorities to do what the feds want (like speed limits) is to tie the actions to grants/subsidies.

I am absolutely in favor of limited government. Of course, one of the core roles is to control our borders and immigration policy (IMHO). Generally, though, the market is better sorting out many things that the gov't wants to meddle in.

The mere act of notifying ICE that you hold a potential criminal deportee is not a budget-buster for local/state facilities. I mean, what, a phone call or an email? How much does that cost? But you're right; failure to do so should be tied to grants/subsidies. And how is this an expansion of Fed authority, if you recognize the Fed's responsibility to protect our borders to begin with?

.

 

[jamil]

I don’t know a lot about e-verify, so I don’t know if it’s adequate to stop the day work/subcontracting. If you’ve hired a contractor lately for construction/home repair, chances are that it was a crew of illegal workers doing the labor. The contractor subs out work to a middle man who then goes and picks up workers for the day to do the work.

The subcontractor is usually here legally and kinda shields the general contractor from responsibility. If e-verify makes everyone in the employer chain responsible, I suppose that might be a little more effective. But, it’s going to be a hardship on the general contractor, especially if it’s a small business, to have to make sure all the people working on his jobs are legal. I’d hate tonsee a contractor get ruined because a some guy on a subcontractor’s crew was illegal.

And how far do you go with it? Do you make the client who hired the contractor responsible for the contractor’s sub’s sub? If I hire a contractor to replace my roof, I don’t want to be on the hook for the contractor’s subcontractor, hiring his illegal nephew as a gopher.

 

[T.Lex]

The mere act of notifying ICE that you hold a potential criminal deportee is not a budget-buster for local/state facilities. I mean, what, a phone call or an email? How much does that cost? But you're right; failure to do so should be tied to grants/subsidies.

.

I am familiar with agencies who've taken criminal illegal immigrants into custody and had to release them because calls/emails/desperate pleas to the federal alphabet agencies went unheeded.

That frames the pick-your-poison choice of more federal resources to handle them or ask/tell/bribe local agencies to do more.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The mere act of notifying ICE that you hold a potential criminal deportee is not a budget-buster for local/state facilities. I mean, what, a phone call or an email? How much does that cost? But you're right; failure to do so should be tied to grants/subsidies.

.

That's the point I was getting at too. You're free to play by your own rules (states/cities), but don't expect to keep our wallet (federal money) open to you.

 

[T.Lex]

Sorry, missed the edit....

And how is this an expansion of Fed authority, if you recognize the Fed's responsibility to protect our borders to begin with?

.

I'm still not sure where the breakdown in communication is on this.

My comment about expanding federal authority is related to the notion of the feds dictating/motivating state level action.

The speed limit issue is what comes to my mind first. Really, while somewhat trivial, I don't see any compelling reason for the federal government to have any role in establishing speed limits. Anywhere. (Ok, maybe DC and federal lands, like parks and military bases.)

Likewise, I don't see any reason for the feds to care if some city wants to be a "sanctuary." Heck, it kinda makes the feds' job easier; they have a map to where a bunch of illegal immigrants will be.

The expansion of federal authority, in the form of legal bribes/grants/subsidies to tell local governments what to do and when to do it, IMHO is not worth the tradeoff. I'd prefer to see the feds do federal stuff.

But, also willing to say that reasonable people can disagree on this.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don’t know a lot about e-verify, so I don’t know if it’s adequate to stop the day work/subcontracting. If you’ve hired a contractor lately for construction/home repair, chances are that it was a crew of illegal workers doing the labor. The contractor subs out work to a middle man who then goes and picks up workers for the day to do the work.

The subcontractor is usually here legally and kinda shields the general contractor from responsibility. If e-verify makes everyone in the employer chain responsible, I suppose that might be a little more effective. But, it’s going to be a hardship on the general contractor, especially if it’s a small business, to have to make sure all the people working on his jobs are legal. I’d hate tonsee a contractor get ruined because a some guy on a subcontractor’s crew was illegal.

And how far do you go with it? Do you make the client who hired the contractor responsible for the contractor’s sub’s sub? If I hire a contractor to replace my roof, I don’t want to be on the hook for the contractor’s subcontractor, hiring his illegal nephew as a gopher.

What you need to know about E-Verify is that it's currently unavailable.


How ironic.

 

[Hohn]

I keep hoping the Trump's insistence on the Wall is really just to give him something to "give away" to get something truly useful like ending chain migration, limiting visas, limiting asylum cases, and an E-verify with actual teeth.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

An interesting question. There is some info floating around, but I don't trust it...example:
https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/1-main-reason-u-s-border-wall-hasnt-been-built/

 

[HoughMade]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

 

[AmmoManAaron]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

Huh, Wiki actually had some useful/reputable information for a change. I admit, I didn't think to look there.

 

[HoughMade]

Huh, Wiki actually had some useful/reputable information for a change. I admit, I didn't think to look there.

The 50 billion was the projected cost for 25 years including building and maintenance.

However, they did spend something like 2 billion or more.

To me, this law, not very long ago, is a good argument that "The Wall" is nothing new and it wasn't so long ago that many Democrats were on board.

 

[T.Lex]

I think Trump's reading this thread. I heard something in the last hour (so no link) about how he's going to propose additional changes to the immigration laws, including a limited path to citizenship.

That's a great sign, if it happens. (For every promise delivered - bumpstock ban - there's one that hasn't - repeal Obamacare.)

He really would do better with the electorate overall if he had something that at least seemed comprehensive.

ETA:
Oops... looks like only for H-1B visas, for now. At least it is a start for the conversation. The Dems will want it broader than that, so he may be playing the strategy of offering something narrow while negotiating for something broader, that he'd also be happy with.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Grifters gonna grift.

So that $20M border wall GoFundMe campaign? Its organizer now hopes to use the money to finance a new nonprofit. Its board includes Kris Kobach, David Clarke, Erik Prince, and Tom Tancredo

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gofun...nd-sheriff-clarke-for-new-non-profit?ref=wrap

 

[Denny347]

Perfect. I missed this.

Denny, perhaps you missed this part of my post:



Many, including me, have stated that eVerify needs to be required (like I-9) documentation, which presumably requires new law. Or does it? Generally, yes, but I see a way to be pretty effective in clamping down even under current law.

First off, employing an illegal carries a pretty measly fine of $375 per employee for first offense, increasing to $1,600 on 3rd and subsequent. Not very hefty, and IMO, not much of a deterrent. HOWEVER, if the employer engages in a "pattern and practice" of employing illegals, then that becomes a criminal offense with $3000 and 6 months in prison PER employee! So, suddenly, an employer with 100 illegal employees is facing $300,000 in fines and 50 years possible of possible prison sentences. Tack on filing (or not filing) fraudulent I-9s, knowingly providing fraudulent documents, and payroll violations for not paying employees accurately, etc, etc, and I would think a smart prosecutor could double that by throwing the book at the violator, now we are talking $600,000 and 100 years of potential prison time.

Now we're talking some serious consequences.

Second, charge EVERYONE responsible. CEO/President of the company? Yup. CFO/accountant? Yup. HR head? Yup. HR anybody involved in hiring? Yup. Plant manager? Yup. Crew foreman/supervisor? Yup.

Third, pile on conspiracy charges. They all knew and acted in concert. Perhaps we are now up to a $1 Million fine for each individual involved in the conspiracy and 200 years in potential prison time. (probably more like 2-5 years of "real" time serving concurrently, but still scary for the average person)

Fourth, make the opening "salvos" in an area with "friendly" courts, i.e. not California or anywhere under the 9th circuit.

Finally, and this is key, make it clear that the employer could have easily avoided this by using eVerify but PURPOSEFULLY avoided eVerify because they knew doing so would have prevented them from hiring illegals.

Boom... de facto mandatory eVerify.

tl;dr: The "regular" fines for employing illegals are minuscule and ineffective. However, prosecuting large employers as a conspiracy, and throwing the book at violators, adds real teeth. Go after those who avoid eVerify because they intend to hire large numbers of illegals.

 

[Trigger Time]

Grifters gonna grift.

So that $20M border wall GoFundMe campaign? Its organizer now hopes to use the money to finance a new nonprofit. Its board includes Kris Kobach, David Clarke, Erik Prince, and Tom Tancredo

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gofun...nd-sheriff-clarke-for-new-non-profit?ref=wrap

Awesome. Hopefully they go to war with illegals