The President Trump Immigration Thread

[T.Lex]

g) All of the above √

So American parents that adopted a kid from Guatemala 25 years ago didn't file the right forms with INS, the kid should be sent back?

 

[BugI02]

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.

I thought a lawyer's advice to settle was mainly driven by the fact it generates the most favorable work to reward ratio for him/her

 

[OakRiver]

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

Please support your claim that illegal entry into any country is victimless. Does it continue to be "victimless" when that individual or individuals remain in the country and consume services funded by others?

What is your opinion on someone who enters your home without permission, refuses to leave, claims that they are a member of your household, eats your food, and uses your medical insurance? Still victimless?

Do you go faster than the speed limit?

No.

 

[OakRiver]

So American parents that adopted a kid from Guatemala 25 years ago didn't file the right forms with INS, the kid should be sent back?

That is clearly different scenario from from illegal entry because USCIS would have been negligent in the discharge of their duties and approved someone to enter the country who was ineligible, and the petitioners relied upon that authorization in good faith.

Respectfully you are taking the exception to the rule and trying to make it the rule.

 

[OakRiver]

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.

Selective enforcement of immigration law is one of the reasons why we have such a high population of illegal immigrants in this country.

 

[T.Lex]

Please support your claim that illegal entry into any country is victimless. Does it continue to be "victimless" when that individual or individuals remain in the country and consume services funded by others?

Those are 2 separate acts.

Again, we need to get back to definitions.

Illegal entry alone is victimless.

The statistics are mixed as to whether illegal immigration is a negative/neutral/positive thing in terms of resource consumption.

Tell me, the able-bodied people who consume services funded by others - should that be punished? Or is it an entitlement for being a US citizen?

 

[T.Lex]

Selective enforcement of immigration law is one of the reasons why we have such a high population of illegal immigrants in this country.

And speeders.

And thieves/tax evaders/miscreants.

And lawyers.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

$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 would disagree that it would be lost. Just on the agricultural side, farmers are not going to let their crop rot in the field. They will find a way at some level of pay that isn't artificially deflated... in rural communities, at about $10 per hour, you'll have high school/college kids lining up for a little extra cash... and if you allow legal entry for work, in many cases it might be the same individuals... paid more, paying taxes, and treated humanely.

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.

I'm mostly thinking mostly about migrant agricultural work and I'm guessing a 6-9 month work permit would do the job. The number issued should be enough to meet the demand, but not so many that they artificially deflate wages. (other industries might be different)

I think it would be important to design the program so that those who are interested PRIMARILY in work, could do so... while those interested PRIMARILY in citizenship could do so also. The current illegal entry system distorts these. It's just my opinion, but I think there are many here who still love their home country, still identify as Mexican, for example, and are only here for work... who would return "home" if there was confidence they could return for work next season.

Increase BOTH as long as their entry is legal, fair and designed principally in this country's best interests.

 

[BugI02]

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.

Every. Single. Time. I. Get. Behind. The. Wheel.

But that just makes me a 'sinner', it doesn't obviate the law I am breaking. But if the fact that, oh, probably 7/8 of all drivers break or bend the speed limit requires the powers that be to make accommodations to us; I favor the issuance of a high performance license (after demonstrating skills, having equally high performance equipment and paying high performance fees) that allows 20 over in all situations except school zones. Because; my rights and stuff

 

[T.Lex]

I'm mostly thinking mostly about migrant agricultural work and I'm guessing a 6-9 month work permit would do the job. The number issued should be enough to meet the demand, but not so many that they artificially deflate wages. (other industries might be different)

I think it would be important to design the program so that those who are interested PRIMARILY in work, could do so... while those interested PRIMARILY in citizenship could do so also. The current illegal entry system distorts these. It's just my opinion, but I think there are many here who still love their home country, still identify as Mexican, for example, and are only here for work... who would return "home" if there was confidence they could return for work next season.

Increase BOTH as long as their entry is legal, fair and designed principally in this country's best interests.

This seems reasonable. In fact, I think that's an idea that should be explored regardless of some of these other things. If it were that easy to get an appropriate work permit, I think most people would prefer that to the coyote route. It could essentially compete with the coyotes, which would not be all bad.

Outside the migrant agricultural realm, though, the immigrants already here would need to be addressed IMHO. There'd still be millions for whom "going back" isn't really an option.

 

[BugI02]

So American parents that adopted a kid from Guatemala 25 years ago didn't file the right forms with INS, the kid should be sent back?

You have to draw a line somewhere, and some people will get ink on themselves. They could/would have the right to appeal (from Guatemala City)

 

[BugI02]

Those are 2 separate acts.

Again, we need to get back to definitions.

Illegal entry alone is victimless.

The statistics are mixed as to whether illegal immigration is a negative/neutral/positive thing in terms of resource consumption.

Tell me, the able-bodied people who consume services funded by others - should that be punished? Or is it an entitlement for being a US citizen?

Perhaps if we ended it entirely, that would establish a laboratory within which we could determine negative/neutral/positive. Anything short of that seems mere sophistry

 

[OakRiver]

Those are 2 separate acts.

Again, we need to get back to definitions.

Illegal entry alone is victimless.

Illegal entry is not an end in itself, illegal entry is a means to an end that results in illegal immigrants remaining unlawfully at large. You are seeking to make an artificial distinction as if one can be entirely separated from the other.

The need for definitions is a distraction. We have been talking about illegal immigration, which was defined for your benefit, and you then chose to shift the goalposts from illegal immigrants to illegal entry. As previously indicated one may enter the country with lawful permission, and then through their actions or the passage of time remain unlawfully in the country. That is still illegal immigration.

How does one enter a country illegally and not be an illegal immigrant?

The statistics are mixed as to whether illegal immigration is a negative/neutral/positive thing in terms of resource consumption.

Then your claims that illegal entry is "victimless" is disingenuous as it is a direct contribution to illegal immigration, which you are now contending has unclear consequences.

Tell me, the able-bodied people who consume services funded by others - should that be punished? Or is it an entitlement for being a US citizen?

The function of our government is to provide services to it's citizens and those who are here legally. Those who are here illegally have no entitlement to said services. I am unclear as to why you feel the need to ask that as this is considered the norm in the overwhelming majority of First World Western nations.

 

[T.Lex]

Illegal entry is not an end in itself, illegal entry is a means to an end that results in illegal immigrants remaining unlawfully at large. You are seeking to make an artificial distinction as if one can be entirely separated from the other.

No, it is a real distinction. You seem to be ignoring that there are people who entered legally, but are working/paying taxes, but employed illegally. In your formulation, they are paying for the services they receive and subsidizing others - legal and illegal.

Then your claims that illegal entry is "victimless" is disingenuous as it is a direct contribution to illegal immigration, which you are now contending has unclear consequences.

Yes, the net impact of illegal immigration on taxes/services is unclear. That doesn't make illegal entry morally equivalent of rape. Well, to you I guess it does.

The function of our government is to provide services to it's citizens and those who are here legally. Those who are here illegally have no entitlement to said services.

Even if they are subsidizing them?

I am unclear as to why you feel the need to ask that as this is considered the norm in the overwhelming majority of First World Western nations.

No other country has America's history of immigration or the scale of illegal immigration problems.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This seems reasonable. In fact, I think that's an idea that should be explored regardless of some of these other things. If it were that easy to get an appropriate work permit, I think most people would prefer that to the coyote route. It could essentially compete with the coyotes, which would not be all bad.

Outside the migrant agricultural realm, though, the immigrants already here would need to be addressed IMHO. There'd still be millions for whom "going back" isn't really an option.

Not their preferred option, but...

Earlier, you used the example of a first-time, one-time thief getting leniency from the legal system as an example. I'm supposing you meant to compare that to a person who illegally entered this country one time. I think the comparison is apples and oranges since it isn't only a crime to enter illegally, but also to continue to remain illegally. Can you think of another situation where the legal system gives leniency to someone who continues to commit the crime?

 

[T.Lex]

Not their preferred option, but...

Earlier, you used the example of a first-time, one-time thief getting leniency from the legal system as an example. I'm supposing you meant to compare that to a person who illegally entered this country one time. I think the comparison is apples and oranges since it isn't only a crime to enter illegally, but also to continue to remain illegally. Can you think of another situation where the legal system gives leniency to someone who continues to commit the crime?

Stealing money is a crime.

Holding the money after you stole it is not a crime.

For purposes of INGO camaraderie, I'll concede that the Mexican border crossers deserve sent back to whatever ****hole they're from.

What I'm trying to address - and it will need to be addressed - are the millions (rough numbers, but statistically meaningful) that are the more difficult cases. People who entered legally (didn't commit a crime) but over-stayed or are working beyond the scope of their visas (admittedly, unlawful). And have been doing so long enough, and are otherwise law abiding, that even INGO would accept that sending them "back" would be morally wrong.

But then, in my optimism, I sometimes underestimate INGO's cruelty.

 

[OakRiver]

No, it is a real distinction. You seem to be ignoring that there are people who entered legally, but are working/paying taxes, but employed illegally. In your formulation, they are paying for the services they receive and subsidizing others - legal and illegal.

How can I be ignoring something that I explicitly mentioned in Post #273 above;
"As previously indicated one may enter the country with lawful permission, and then through their actions or the passage of time remain unlawfully in the country. That is still illegal immigration."

How does one enter a country illegally and not be an illegal immigrant?

Yes, the net impact of illegal immigration on taxes/services is unclear. That doesn't make illegal entry morally equivalent of rape. Well, to you I guess it does.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, and I object to it the strongest terms possible. At no time have I ever made that claim.

From Post #250
"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."

You may withdraw in whole your false statement, or you will demonstrate that you are arguing in bad faith.

Even if they are subsidizing them?

I believe that this was answered in the post to which you replied; "The function of our government is to provide services to it's citizens and those who are here legally. Those who are here illegally have no entitlement to said services."

No other country has America's history of immigration or the scale of illegal immigration problems.

Please elaborate on these "illegal immigration problems" when you just told us that "[t]he statistics are mixed as to whether illegal immigration is a negative/neutral/positive thing in terms of resource consumption."

 

[HoughMade]

I thought a lawyer's advice to settle was mainly driven by the fact it generates the most favorable work to reward ratio for him/her

Only on the plaintiff's side.

 

[OakRiver]

For purposes of INGO camaraderie, I'll concede that the Mexican border crossers deserve sent back to whatever ****hole they're from.

Only those crossing from Mexico? Not other borders or points of entry?

What I'm trying to address - and it will need to be addressed - are the millions (rough numbers, but statistically meaningful) that are the more difficult cases. People who entered legally (didn't commit a crime) but over-stayed or are working beyond the scope of their visas (admittedly, unlawful). And have been doing so long enough, and are otherwise law abiding, that even INGO would accept that sending them "back" would be morally wrong.

But then, in my optimism, I sometimes underestimate INGO's cruelty.

Asking that people abide by the law of the land is not "cruelty". These are individuals who have abused the good faith of a nation to which they were invited, and their length of unlawful stay should not prevent remedial action being taken by the authorities. One cannot be said to be "law abiding" while flouting the law.

 

[T.Lex]

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position, and I object to it the strongest terms possible. At no time have I ever made that claim.

From Post #250
"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."

You may withdraw in whole your false statement, or you will demonstrate that you are arguing in bad faith.

You've equivocated illegal entry with a dizzying array of terrible crimes. You may not realize it, so I'm trying to let you know.

You: Illegally immigrating is a crime of moral turpitude.
Rape is a crime of moral turpitude.
Illegally immigrating is equivalent to rape.

Please elaborate on these "illegal immigration problems" when you just told us that "[t]he statistics are mixed as to whether illegal immigration is a negative/neutral/positive thing in terms of resource consumption."

In the US, we have millions of people in a legal gray area. For as lucrative as that may be for various segments of the population, it is not good policy. I think we should, as a country, try to resolve it.