The President Trump Immigration Thread

[OakRiver]

They can be, and are.

Then I await your explanation of how someone can enter the US illegally and not be an illegal immigrant

I believe the earlier amnesty applied to individuals who could prove they'd been here for 5 years. So, 5 years is what it used to be.

A similar approach could be taken again, but with different numbers. Statutes of limitations are... by definition... creatures of statute.

False. There is no statute of limitations for being in the country unlawfully. There is a statute of limitations (10 years, not 5 as you claim) for some immigration offences based around fraud or misrepresentation, but that is not the same as being in this country without lawful status.
Again the clock on the statute of limitations begins once the illegal activity has ceased being committed, as illegal immigration is an ongoing conduct the only way to cease the activity is to leave the country you are illegally present in.

And as long as you're labeling immigration matters as administrative, remind me what administrative rule violations end in prison terms.

Another strawman, please stop mis-representing my statements. What I said was "immigration law is generally more administrative in nature", that does not prevent a small number of criminal offences stemming from breaches of this branch of public law.

The prior law allowed for people to pay a fine and enter a path to citizenship. Current law allows for the DACA people and other hardships cases to remain in the US. So, yes, the law allows for that. Just like almost every other non-violent offense.

You were not asked what prior mechanisms existed, the exchange we had was;
OR"; The fact of the matter remains that the legal consequences are the direct result of someone breaking the law. The responsibility begins and ends there."
T.L; "That's not what the law said a few years ago, not really what it says now."
OR; "The law says that people who break immigration law bear no responsibility for their actions?"
You appear to be incapable of responding to this argument

Emotion is not fallacy, unless you're Vulcan. Emotions are quite real. And important.

Appeals to emotion are by their very definition a fallacy; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
"Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.


Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid"

You believe it is politically possible to reform immigration without amnesty? What evidence have you of your assertion?

Don't attempt to reverse the burden of proof. You claimed that amnesty had to be a part of immigration reform and have not supported that statement when I challenged it. The onus is on you to establish your case.

Speaking of rhetoric, there was no apparent reduction in the rate of illegal immigration post-amnesty (other than the economic collapse). How do you explain that?

So you admit that the amnesty did not work as a means to deter illegal immigration

Point of clarification: are you saying the actual number of illegal immigrants went down, or that the rate slowed down during the collapse? Or something different?

A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population | Center for Immigration Studies
"Our best estimate is that the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009.

If we compare the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009, the implied decline is 1.3 million (10.9 percent). In just the last year the decline was 5.7 percent."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2009/11/19/how-the-recessions-affecting-immigration/
"If arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border are an indication of illegal crossing activity, the fact that the number has dropped by more than 23 percent during the past year probably indicates a reduction in persons attempting to make the trip. Precipitously declining economic opportunity combined with beefed-up enforcement have been factors in the recent drop in the number of immigration arrests at the border over the past few years. The number recorded for FY 2009 represents a 34-year low point. At the same time the border patrol budget has risen to nearly $11 billion, up from $6 billion in 2004."

https://web.stanford.edu/group/rece.../themes/barron/pdf/Immigration_fact_sheet.pdf
"The prevailing account, insofar as there is one, has it that the influx of undocumented workers, especially from Mexico, has suddenly slowed as the demand for labor in the U.S. weakens.. . .
The undocumented population peaked in 2006 before declining in the wake of the Great Recession and the resulting weakening in labor demand. For the first time in six decades, the undocumented population is no longer growing. "

Also, among my examples that you haven't fully addressed are the examples where the employers are not aware that the person is illegal. They have a valid SSN and have worked since their lawful arrival. How can we punish the employer in that example?

Already addressed this point in my opening post with the expansion of e-verify. This would highlight irregularities and protect employers so that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are at risk of legal sanction.

Second, the current (and recent past) laws and policies aren't working. Something needs to be done.

They do not work because of an unwillingness to enforce the law of the land, sanctuary cities, etc.

Third, I cannot escape the human element. I'm not advocating, and haven't, blanket amnesty. There are classes of INGO-defined illegal immigrants that I believe worthy of amnesty. People who deserve to be citizens of the US, have proven themselves worthy of it, but because of a byzantine legal system are lumped together with drug smugglers, human traffickers, and their ilk.

That's not fair, nor right.

It is right and fair that people who are not in the country legally are considered at risk of deportation. People prove themselves worthy of becoming US citizens by showing that they are capable of becoming part of US society, and part of that is showing that they respect the laws of the land. You do not do this by willfully violating the law on a continual basis, and then trying to pull at heart strings. If an individual is worthy of becoming a US citizen then that person may submit their application to USCIS who will adjudicate on the matter.

What is not fair, nor right is breaking the law and then pleading for special circumstances.

Ok, but would you oppose something like that? People with US citizen spouses living in the US could have equal access to work visas, so they can work here legally, then adjusting status to permanent resident/citizen based on the (legitimate) marriage.

Again you are proposing that people who broke the law be rewarded for doing so in the form of special considerations for the law breaking. That is not fair, nor right.

 

[T.Lex]

Then I await your explanation of how someone can enter the US illegally and not be an illegal immigrant

Why? I didn't posit that that was true. My position is that they are separate.

False. There is no statute of limitations for being in the country unlawfully. There is a statute of limitations (10 years, not 5 as you claim) for some immigration offences based around fraud or misrepresentation, but that is not the same as being in this country without lawful status.

I agree. But, I made no claim other than what my memory was of the prior amnesty. As I recall, someone had to prove residence in the US for 5 years prior to the application.

Again the clock on the statute of limitations begins once the illegal activity has ceased being committed, as illegal immigration is an ongoing conduct the only way to cease the activity is to leave the country you are illegally present in.

That is a definitional issue, easily overcome.

Another strawman, please stop mis-representing my statements.

Back 'acha, babe.

You were not asked what prior mechanisms existed, the exchange we had was;
OR"; The fact of the matter remains that the legal consequences are the direct result of someone breaking the law. The responsibility begins and ends there."
T.L; "That's not what the law said a few years ago, not really what it says now."
OR; "The law says that people who break immigration law bear no responsibility for their actions?"

Let me try to re-explain.

The law allowed for people who entered/remained illegally to pay a fine and become citizens. The law still allows for deportation to be stayed in cases of severe hardships (I can't remember the exact standard, but something along those lines).

I do not know if that meets your definition of "bear no responsibility." Perhaps you can elaborate on your view of those scenarios?

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.

Emotion moves action. That is not a fallacy. Just ask Trump.

Don't attempt to reverse the burden of proof. You claimed that amnesty had to be a part of immigration reform and have not supported that statement when I challenged it. The onus is on you to establish your case.

This is a discussion. There is no burden of proof. Historically, the only major immigration reform to pass into law included some form of amnesty. That is simply the truth. It is a matter of historical record.

So you admit that the amnesty did not work as a means to deter illegal immigration

Amnesty is not intended to deter illegal immigration. Speaking of mischaracterization, I never proposed that.

...

Thank you for the links, I will review them when I'm able. I'm particularly interested in the net-loss of illegal immigrants. I was aware that the rate had slowed during the crash, but not that the total number may have decreased.

But, perhaps that's the answer: tank the economy enough and the problem fixes itself?

Already addressed this point in my opening post with the expansion of e-verify. This would highlight irregularities and protect employers so that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are at risk of legal sanction.

How would an expansion of e-verify "protect" employers who employ illegal aliens who are in the system as employable?

They do not work because of an unwillingness to enforce the law of the land, sanctuary cities, etc.

Regardless, they do not work.

So, let's drill down on that. Why do you think there's an unwillingness to enforce the law of the land? Was it just Obama? The problem goes back generations.

A law that is unenforced ought not be on the books, eh? That's the other option. I believe you posited upthread that you had an issue with selective enforcement. Well, one answer is to enforce all the laws. Another answer is to remove or amend the laws that aren't enforced.

Along those same lines, Trump's administration has stated (I believe) that taxes submitted without proof of health insurance will still be accepted, and there's rumors that the penalty won't be enforced. By your reasoning, that should not happen.

It is right and fair that people who are not in the country legally are considered at risk of deportation. People prove themselves worthy of becoming US citizens by showing that they are capable of becoming part of US society, and part of that is showing that they respect the laws of the land.

That can be accomplished without legally entering. Moreover, and these are the more difficult cases I'm trying to highlight, one can become "illegal" without knowing it based on a misunderstanding of the immigration system or bad legal advice.

What is not fair, nor right is breaking the law and then pleading for special circumstances.

Back when I did death penalty work, that was the primary framework for the defense.

Again you are proposing that people who broke the law be rewarded for doing so in the form of special considerations for the law breaking. That is not fair, nor right.

We don't have to agree on the fairness or righteousness. But if we can't agree on a proper scope of amnesty, nothing will change. (Rhetorically. I don't think Congress monitors INGO for policy issues. At least, my God, I hope they don't.)

 

[KLB]

You guys are just talking past each other. Probably time to move on.

 

[jamil]

You guys are just talking past each other. Probably time to move on.

I've been thinking that for the last couple of pages.i was gonna chime in on a point or two and decided it would only extend it.

 

[T.Lex]

You guys are just talking past each other. Probably time to move on.

 

[KLB]

 

[OakRiver]

Why? I didn't posit that that was true. My position is that they are separate.

And have yet to support that claim. Please explain how they are separate and how one can enter a country unlawfully and not be an illegal immigrant?

I agree. But, I made no claim other than what my memory was of the prior amnesty. As I recall, someone had to prove residence in the US for 5 years prior to the application.

You were incorrect

That is a definitional issue, easily overcome.

Until such times as the law is amended you are in error

Back 'acha, babe.

Another falsehood, I have done no such thing

Let me try to re-explain.

The law allowed for people who entered/remained illegally to pay a fine and become citizens. The law still allows for deportation to be stayed in cases of severe hardships (I can't remember the exact standard, but something along those lines).

I do not know if that meets your definition of "bear no responsibility." Perhaps you can elaborate on your view of those scenarios?

You are still refusing to address what has been said.

You seem to be making a lot of your arguments based on inaccurate, or mis-remembered details. I'll wait while you re-familiarize yourself with the details again. After all you were the one seeking precision in this discussion.

Emotion moves action. That is not a fallacy. Just ask Trump.

Incorrect, and I have demonstrated this

This is a discussion. There is no burden of proof. Historically, the only major immigration reform to pass into law included some form of amnesty. That is simply the truth. It is a matter of historical record.

There is absolutely a burden of proof in discussions, otherwise it would consist of grand claims and mis-remembered details going unchallenged.
Simply because something was done in the past it does not mean that we continue to do it. Just because one has put a lot of time into a mistake it does not mean that one continues to make that mistake.

Amnesty is not intended to deter illegal immigration. Speaking of mischaracterization, I never proposed that.

You stated that any action on illegal immigration would need amnesty as a component (Post 285), I challenged this as amnesty is not an effective part in curbing illegal immigration (Post 288), in Post 291 you admitted that amnesty did not deter illegal immigration. You proved my point that amnesty is not required to be a part of any action on illegal immigration.
There was no mischaracterization on my part.

But, perhaps that's the answer: tank the economy enough and the problem fixes itself?

Or a better plan, which I proposed in my opening post, was to remove the economic incentives to use illegal immigrant labor and the economic migrants would remove themselves. No mass deportation necessary

How would an expansion of e-verify "protect" employers who employ illegal aliens who are in the system as employable?

Annual check on all employees to confirm they are still legally entitled to work. This may be mandatory reporting by the employer, or due with submission of taxes by the individual

Regardless, they do not work.

They work when they are properly enforced. The law works. The people charged with discharging them do not. That is easily remedied once they are held accountable to their oaths of office.

So, let's drill down on that. Why do you think there's an unwillingness to enforce the law of the land? Was it just Obama? The problem goes back generations.[/QUOTE]
Just because a problem goes back generations does not mean we ignore it, or give special treatment to those breaking the law. You gave the example up thread about murder. Murder is illegal, it has also been behavior for as long as mankind has existed with no end in sight. We don't hand wave off that problem.

A law that is unenforced ought not be on the books, eh? That's the other option. I believe you posited upthread that you had an issue with selective enforcement. Well, one answer is to enforce all the laws. Another answer is to remove or amend the laws that aren't enforced.

Along those same lines, Trump's administration has stated (I believe) that taxes submitted without proof of health insurance will still be accepted, and there's rumors that the penalty won't be enforced. By your reasoning, that should not happen.

Correct, the law should be applied until such times as it is no longer the law. Those charged with enforcing the law of the land do so on the basis of what the law is, not what it may be at some point in the future.

That can be accomplished without legally entering. Moreover, and these are the more difficult cases I'm trying to highlight, one can become "illegal" without knowing it based on a misunderstanding of the immigration system or bad legal advice.

How can one enter the US unlawfully and demonstrate that they are intent on following the laws of society?
I am interested in more details of these two scenarios that you highlight; the bad legal advice and misunderstanding the legal system because they seem so remote that you are attempting to use potential exceptions to the rule to become the rule.

Back when I did death penalty work, that was the primary framework for the defense.

And?

We don't have to agree on the fairness or righteousness. But if we can't agree on a proper scope of amnesty, nothing will change. (Rhetorically. I don't think Congress monitors INGO for policy issues. At least, my God, I hope they don't.)

The"proper scope of amnesty" is consigned to the dustbin of history. It has already been demonstrated that it is worthless in terms of preventing illegal immigration, which is the point being discussed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Can we at least stop doing the nested quotes in nested quotes thing.

Picking apart a post line-by-line makes it difficult to continue a good conversation. It's just trying to score more points than the other person at that point.

 

[OakRiver]

I've been thinking that for the last couple of pages.i was gonna chime in on a point or two and decided it would only extend it.

If that is the consensus we are reaching as a community I'll end my discussion with T.Lex here, but my points stand.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The prior law allowed for people to pay a fine and enter a path to citizenship. Current law allows for the DACA people and other hardships cases to remain in the US. So, yes, the law allows for that. Just like almost every other non-violent offense.

The "prior law" you refer to was very specific that it was ONE TIME ONLY in exchange for solving the illegal immigration side of the problem. Democrats got their end of the deal, newly minted voters, and promptly reneged and have continued to do so ever since.

Please point me to the US Code, i.e the place in the law code, that has the DACA exception. I've searched both the House and Senate for the text of the bill that made it law and cannot find it.

 

[OakRiver]

'Day Without Immigrants' protests being held across US

 

[HoughMade]

Yeah, and there's a "day without women" thing coming up in March.

I was wondering what a "Day without male citizens" would look like.

 

[T.Lex]

Can we at least stop doing the nested quotes in nested quotes thing.

Picking apart a post line-by-line makes it difficult to continue a good conversation. It's just trying to score more points than the other person at that point.

Ok, how about this - going back to the thread topic - Trump's immigration policy.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Immigration-Reform-Trump.pdf

Politically, his campaign was on mass deportations (except when it wasn't) and a wall. The closest he got to amnesty was an expression of being "fair." I think he used the word "humane" at least once. I also believe there were reports of a closed door meeting where he promised a form of "legalization."

Is there an INGO-consensus about whether he'll go along with some sort of amnesty when it is presented by Congress? Or will this issue continue to flounder?

If that is the consensus we are reaching as a community I'll end my discussion with T.Lex here, but my points stand.

The "prior law" you refer to was very specific that it was ONE TIME ONLY in exchange for solving the illegal immigration side of the problem. Democrats got their end of the deal, newly minted voters, and promptly reneged and have continued to do so ever since.

Please point me to the US Code, i.e the place in the law code, that has the DACA exception. I've searched both the House and Senate for the text of the bill that made it law and cannot find it.

Well, "one time" that lasted about 15 years.

And DACA, as I understand it, is based on the verboten selective enforcement. As a policy matter, the executive has the authority to direct the administration of the laws in certain ways. In this case, I believe it is a "blanket deferral" - if someone meets certain criteria, they won't be deported, even though they have illegal status.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, and there's a "day without women" thing coming up in March.

I was wondering what a "Day without male citizens" would look like.

Shopping malls during NCAA tournament games.

 

[OakRiver]

Yeah, and there's a "day without women" thing coming up in March.

I was wondering what a "Day without male citizens" would look like.

Lots of unopened jars

 

[bwframe]

I think this will backfire on them. What happens when we get to the weekend and decide that we didn't miss anything?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Answering on DACA at news conference, Trump says it's a very hard subject for him, and it involves "incredible kids"... possibly hinting at an amnesty option


Edit: Also, maybe don't stay at Comfort Suites?

 

[actaeon277]

You guys are just talking past each other. Probably time to move on.

I've been thinking that for the last couple of pages.i was gonna chime in on a point or two and decided it would only extend it.

yup

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Well, "one time" that lasted about 15 years.

Ok, maybe I'm ignorant on this one... has there been another amnesty other than Reagan's for those who enter (and remained continuously) before Jan. 1, 1982?

And DACA, as I understand it, is based on the verboten selective enforcement. As a policy matter, the executive has the authority to direct the administration of the laws in certain ways. In this case, I believe it is a "blanket deferral" - if someone meets certain criteria, they won't be deported, even though they have illegal status.

Don't hurt yourself, lol! Without the back flips, DACA is simply an Executive Order, not a law. The President can elect not to prosecute certain crimes under prosecutorial discretion... he cannot change the law to make their conduct lawful.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, maybe I'm ignorant on this one... has there been another amnesty other than Reagan's for those who enter (and remained continuously) before Jan. 1, 1982?

Don't hurt yourself, lol! Without the back flips, DACA is simply an Executive Order, not a law. The President can elect not to prosecute certain crimes under prosecutorial discretion... he cannot change the law to make their conduct lawful.

I became aware of it in the late '90s. I believe it was extended under both Bush and Clinton.

ETA:
On DACA, that's right. I don't believe I proposed DACA as amnesty. It puts those people in a legal gray area. Not legal, but allowed to stay.

ETA2:
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html#2