The President Trump Immigration Thread

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;5DkIt1n5EFg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DkIt1n5EFg[/video]

 

[jamil]

The sample was between the ages 15-35, and based only in Arizona? Huh.... I had no idea that at 36 people stopped committing crimes, in Arizona. Love the methodology. lol.

I think the methodology is fair as long as it’s comparing the same age group among legal residents. Younger people do commit more crime generally. It wouldn’t be faie if they’re comparing an age group which commits more crime with all ages of legal residents which includes older people who commit fewer crimes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think the methodology is fair as long as it’s comparing the same age group among legal residents. Younger people do commit more crime generally. It wouldn’t be faie if they’re comparing an age group which commits more crime with all ages of legal residents which includes older people who commit fewer crimes.

Call me shocked. Making a comparison between a very specific group, in a very specific place, and then extrapolating that to a general belief is numerical gamesmanship... with a very specific purpose. A sample of 18-35? In Arizona? Fox may try to pan that off on some folks, but anyone who has taken a week of statistics should know better.

 

[KLB]

Is it unbelievable that a larger percentage of those who enter the country illegally commit crimes than the native population? I would expect that to be true, as I imagine a not insignificant number of actual criminals enter the country that way with the intent to commit crimes once they are here. I would expect that to especially be true by the border.

I don't see that it has any bearing on the issues though. Lumping all of those people in with those criminals is no more relevant than lumping all gun owners in with criminals that own guns.

I would be curious if they commit crimes at a higher percentage than those of a similar socioeconomic standing.

 

[jamil]

Did you read the reat of the post? The study’s summary did not say what age group the 15-35 year old illegal immigrants were compared to. That would be the part which makes it an unfair comparison. Well. Also, it did try to extrapolate the Arizona numbers to natiinwide, which would be unfair to do without establishing some connection.

 

[BugI02]

Call me shocked. Making a comparison between a very specific group, in a very specific place, and then extrapolating that to a general belief is numerical gamesmanship... with a very specific purpose. A sample of 18-35? In Arizona? Fox may try to pan that off on some folks, but anyone who has taken a week of statistics should know better.

You mean like when people take site-specific numbers on the interactions between police and people of color for specific cities/municipalities and extrapolate it to "prove" America suffers from "institutional" racism? Yeah, I knew better even before I took statistics

 

[BugI02]

An important point lost in all this is that all of the crime committed by illegal aliens is preventable crime if we had better (or indeed any) control of our borders.

 

[jamil]

Is it unbelievable that a larger percentage of those who enter the country illegally commit crimes than the native population? I would expect that to be true, as I imagine a not insignificant number of actual criminals enter the country that way with the intent to commit crimes once they are here. I would expect that to especially be true by the border.

I don't see that it has any bearing on the issues though. Lumping all of those people in with those criminals is no more relevant than lumping all gun owners in with criminals that own guns.

I would be curious if they commit crimes at a higher percentage than those of a similar socioeconomic standing.

I think a fair study would get to that question. As far as relevance, the fight is between open borders and not open borders. If it can be proven that a significant number of illegal immigrants come here to commit crimes, that’s a fair datapoint against open borders. That’s a fair reason to scrutinize people you let into the country.

 

[BugI02]

More than that, if you came here under a merit based immigration system, citizenship would not be conferred immediately and you would have skin in the game because you could still be deported. The chance of losing all you had worked towards/for would act as a powerful incentive to stay on the straight and narrow

If you simply jumped the border, faced only deportation for your crimes and then could easily jump the border again - not so much

 

[KLB]

I think a fair study would get to that question. As far as relevance, the fight is between open borders and not open borders. If it can be proven that a significant number of illegal immigrants come here to commit crimes, that’s a fair datapoint against open borders. That’s a fair reason to scrutinize people you let into the country.

I think the problem is actually securing the border. We have what, almost 2,000 miles with Mexico and somewhere around 6,000 miles of coastline for the mainland. I'll leave out Canada and Alaska.

How do you secure almost 6,000 miles of coast? The Gulf coast alone is somewhere around 1,400 miles of coastline not counting Florida's Atlantic coast, and California has 840 miles of coast.

I am still more in favor of taking away incentives for coming here illegally than trying to build a wall. I think that is no more likely to happen than the chance of a wall actually being built along the whole Mexican border.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Is it unbelievable that a larger percentage of those who enter the country illegally commit crimes than the native population? I would expect that to be true, as I imagine a not insignificant number of actual criminals enter the country that way with the intent to commit crimes once they are here. I would expect that to especially be true by the border.

I don't see that it has any bearing on the issues though. Lumping all of those people in with those criminals is no more relevant than lumping all gun owners in with criminals that own guns.

I would be curious if they commit crimes at a higher percentage than those of a similar socioeconomic standing.

Nope.

 

[IndyDave1776]

An important point lost in all this is that all of the crime committed by illegal aliens is preventable crime if we had better (or indeed any) control of our borders.

It amazes me the number of people who are deaf and blind to this most excellent point.

I think the problem is actually securing the border. We have what, almost 2,000 miles with Mexico and somewhere around 6,000 miles of coastline for the mainland. I'll leave out Canada and Alaska.

How do you secure almost 6,000 miles of coast? The Gulf coast alone is somewhere around 1,400 miles of coastline not counting Florida's Atlantic coast, and California has 840 miles of coast.

I am still more in favor of taking away incentives for coming here illegally than trying to build a wall. I think that is no more likely to happen than the chance of a wall actually being built along the whole Mexican border.

This brings two thoughts to mind. First, if we dismiss the goal of securing the borders as being impossible or even impractical, we have conceded and lost before we start. Throughout history, many nations have successfully secured their borders and we have more resources than any of them had. Second, why is securing the border or eliminating incentives an either/or question? We need to do both.

 

[PaulF]

A tourist visa (to visit the US from Mexico) costs $131, and allows the bearer to walk right through a border checkpoint.

Border wall, harbor chain, drones...these things do nothing to make visitors return once their visa has expired.

We need to revise our guest worker program to better serve (and track) the temporary and migrant workers we need for agricultural and seasonal industrial work, while removing as much of the economic incentive that drives illicit migration and squatting.

A large number of those here illegally are here to work a seasonal job, and will return home at the end of the season. There needs to be a program that permits and tracks these workers without turning them into statutory criminals.

Enforce proper hiring practices at the commercial level, and encourage economic growth in Mexico, and this “problem” largely takes care of itself.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A tourist visa (to visit the US from Mexico) costs $131, and allows the bearer to walk right through a border checkpoint.

Border wall, harbor chain, drones...these things do nothing to make visitors return once their visa has expired.

We need to revise our guest worker program to better serve (and track) the temporary and migrant workers we need for agricultural and seasonal industrial work, while removing as much of the economic incentive that drives illicit migration and squatting.

A large number of those here illegally are here to work a seasonal job, and will return home at the end of the season. There needs to be a program that permits and tracks these workers without turning them into statutory criminals.

Enforce proper hiring practices at the commercial level, and encourage economic growth in Mexico, and this “problem” largely takes care of itself.

Agreed.

 

[rob63]

A tourist visa (to visit the US from Mexico) costs $131, and allows the bearer to walk right through a border checkpoint.

Border wall, harbor chain, drones...these things do nothing to make visitors return once their visa has expired.

We need to revise our guest worker program to better serve (and track) the temporary and migrant workers we need for agricultural and seasonal industrial work, while removing as much of the economic incentive that drives illicit migration and squatting.

A large number of those here illegally are here to work a seasonal job, and will return home at the end of the season. There needs to be a program that permits and tracks these workers without turning them into statutory criminals.

Enforce proper hiring practices at the commercial level, and encourage economic growth in Mexico, and this “problem” largely takes care of itself.

Unfortunately, there are just enough people on both sides of the aisle that prefer to have immigration as an election issue to keep it from happening.

 

[Leadeye]

Mexico certainly kept track of me when I worked there. Trouble awaited if you tried to cross back in and there was no record of you leaving.

 

[jamil]

I think the problem is actually securing the border. We have what, almost 2,000 miles with Mexico and somewhere around 6,000 miles of coastline for the mainland. I'll leave out Canada and Alaska.

How do you secure almost 6,000 miles of coast? The Gulf coast alone is somewhere around 1,400 miles of coastline not counting Florida's Atlantic coast, and California has 840 miles of coast.

I am still more in favor of taking away incentives for coming here illegally than trying to build a wall. I think that is no more likely to happen than the chance of a wall actually being built along the whole Mexican border.

The "wall" or fence, or whatever isn't what I mean. When I say "open borders" vs "closed borders"I'm talking about a philosophical difference between whether we should have laws governing if or how we should determine who is allowed here legally. The open borders crowd seems to think that it is immoral to disallow anyone, that there should be no such thing as an illegal residency status. So, given whatever arguments one makes on either side of that, criminal tendencies are a relevant part of that.

 

[bwframe]

We don't need migrant workers. That fallacy belongs with the one about "work that Americans won't do." Total BS.

Plenty of good work right there for welfare recipients and prison trustees.

 

[OakRiver]

We need to revise our guest worker program to better serve (and track) the temporary and migrant workers we need for agricultural and seasonal industrial work, while removing as much of the economic incentive that drives illicit migration and squatting.

A large number of those here illegally are here to work a seasonal job, and will return home at the end of the season. There needs to be a program that permits and tracks these workers without turning them into statutory criminals.

Have a similar program to the I94 (https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/I94/#/home). It would look like this; any immigrant here on a temporary work visa is given a form upon arrival, and that form must be surrendered upon departure, and the barcode on the form scanned to record their departure as they leave. The employer should be obligated to confirm that those workers with work visas are present each shift, and are obliged to report any of these workers who do not show up for work. USCIS should run a report every morning to find who has overstayed their visas, and what their last known address was.

While this is not a perfect solution it goes a long way to addressing many of the challenges we have with people over staying work visas.

Enforce proper hiring practices at the commercial level, and encourage economic growth in Mexico, and this “problem” largely takes care of itself.

Expand the e-verify system, add heavy financial liabilities, and criminal penalties for knowingly hiring an ineligible worker and the reasons for hiring illegal immigrants starts to evaporate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We don't need migrant workers. That fallacy belongs with the one about "work that Americans won't do." Total BS.

Plenty of good work right there for welfare recipients and prison trustees.

I will add to this that 'work that Americans won't do' translates into work Americans won't do for sub-minimum wage working under conditions that wouldn't pass legal muster for tolerable much less being actually tolerable.