PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on November 23, 2024, 07:48:27 AM
-
Both of these need to be dropped from tax payer funding. Their relevance and need went out decades ago, and now they are nothing more than leftist propaganda.
Their content needs to stand on it's on (it can't) and if the viewers aren't there, let the market place determine their fate.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/23/g-s1-35465/trump-deportation-migrants-immigrants-texas-construction-industry-border-security
-
Both of these need to be dropped from tax payer funding. Their relevance and need went out decades ago, and now they are nothing more than leftist propaganda.
Their content needs to stand on it's on (it can't) and if the viewers aren't there, let the market place determine their fate.
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/23/g-s1-35465/trump-deportation-migrants-immigrants-texas-construction-industry-border-security
From the article:
Clear signals President-elect Donald Trump plans to make good on his campaign pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants in his second term has sparked concerns among some in Texas' business and economic sectors who say mass deportations could upend some of the state's major industries that rely on undocumented labor, chief among them the booming construction industry.
"It would devastate our industry, we wouldn't finish our highways, we wouldn't finish our schools," said Stan Marek, CEO of Marek, a Houston-based commercial and residential construction giant. "Housing would disappear. I think they'd lose half their labor."
Why can't we deport the illegals and at the same time set up a better system to allow to come in with legal documentation on some kind of work visa. They would still not be citizens and not entitled to vote and no free medical care, except perhaps emergency treatment.
Finger print them, take a DNA sample. Exclude known criminals. Perhaps even charge them a small processing fee. It would certainly be less than they now pay the mules. Require that they get a job and pay taxes. Then deport them if they are caught breaking the rules or committing a crime. What would be so hard about that?
-
From the article:
Why can't we deport the illegals and at the same time set up a better system to allow to come in with legal documentation on some kind of work visa. They would still not be citizens and not entitled to vote and no free medical care, except perhaps emergency treatment.
We already have laws in place that work properly. Migrant farm workers have been coming in for decades (legally) by just following the law.
Finger print them, take a DNA sample. Exclude known criminals. Perhaps even charge them a small processing fee. It would certainly be less than they now pay the mules. Require that they get a job and pay taxes. Then deport them if they are caught breaking the rules or committing a crime. What would be so hard about that?
Nothing. Except for the DNA sample, those laws are already in place.
-
If a business won a contract by underbidding others (because of "undocumented" workers getting paid less), then too bad for that business.
Properly fill out the I-9 forms, get the W-9 or W-4 forms, and follow the law.
Don't whine.
-
We already have laws in place that work properly.
I'm willing to listen. Please explain to me how those laws are working properly.
Perhaps they would work IFF we sealed the border, which I forgot to add to my post. And I can't believe I forgot to add that because it is THE most important part.
Even then, we have quotas that are too restrictive. Especially if we deport all the existing illegals.
-
I guess "work properly" isn't quite the same as "would work if properly followed"
I'm not quibbling.
-
Look at it from the point of view of the would be immigrant. Your choice is:
1. Apply legally, go through tons of red tape, wait months or years not knowing if you will be approved or denied, have to pay your own way and support yourself if you do manage to be approved.
2. Walk over the border, be given free cell phone, debit card, housing, then allowed to disappear into the country for good, knowing the odds of being deported are virtually zero (up until Trump takes over, probably).
Which would you do if you were miserable in your home country and desperate to come to the U.S.?
The problem will continue until this backwards incentive structure changes. The LEGAL process must be made much faster and more streamlined, without compromising security, and the ILLEGAL process must be made so painful and risky that the incentive structure reverses.
-
I'm willing to listen. Please explain to me how those laws are working properly.
They are not working properly because the establishment has steadfast refused to enforce the laws as written. So if you drafted new laws, what's the guarantee those laws will be followed?
The problem is not the laws, they are already there and they work, if enforced. The real problem is the establishment REFUSING to enforce laws they enacted previously.
Perhaps they would work IFF we sealed the border, which I forgot to add to my post. And I can't believe I forgot to add that because it is THE most important part.
The border needs to be enforced as our current laws state. No where in our laws are exceptions given for those who enter illegally.
Even then, we have quotas that are too restrictive. Especially if we deport all the existing illegals.
Quotas are there for a reason. IF you deported all of the criminal trespassers, you would see a job market get vibrant and wages increase, and most importantly our CITIZENS getting jobs. Those jobs contribute to the tax base.
And please don't use the liberal talking point "but citizens won't do the jobs" because that's a bunch of crap. Start removing all the welfare and incentives not to work, and people will take the jobs.
-
Look at it from the point of view of the would be immigrant. Your choice is:
1. Apply legally, go through tons of red tape, wait months or years not knowing if you will be approved or denied, have to pay your own way and support yourself if you do manage to be approved.
2. Walk over the border, be given free cell phone, debit card, housing, then allowed to disappear into the country for good, knowing the odds of being deported are virtually zero (up until Trump takes over, probably).
Which would you do if you were miserable in your home country and desperate to come to the U.S.?
The problem will continue until this backwards incentive structure changes. The LEGAL process must be made much faster and more streamlined, without compromising security, and the ILLEGAL process must be made so painful and risky that the incentive structure reverses.
Unlike most here, I have participated in the immigration process. All of this pearl clutching about how the process takes too long is pure bullshit. If done properly it works, it just doesn't give people the right to come right in and jump into free services for showing up.
And for those believing the liberal talking points about how complicated our immigration process is, please go look up other modern countries and compare ours to theirs. It's an eye opener.
-
Unlike most here, I have participated in the immigration process. All of this pearl clutching about how the process takes too long is pure bullshit. If done properly it works, it just doesn't give people the right to come right in and jump into free services for showing up.
And for those believing the liberal talking points about how complicated our immigration process is, please go look up other modern countries and compare ours to theirs. It's an eye opener.
In that case all we need to do is make the illegal entry far more painful and risky.
-
In that case all we need to do is make the illegal entry far more painful and risky.
That,
AND deport the existing illegals, starting with anyone that has committed or does commit a crime,
AND we still need to streamline the legal immigration path.
ALSO, the penalties for anyone caught sneaking in AFTER being deported need to be greatly increased.
-
and don't forget to go after the scum businesses that hire the illegals.
-
AND we still need to streamline the legal immigration path.
What part needs to be "streamlined"? Citing existing law, show us how it doesn't work.
-
What part needs to be "streamlined"? Citing existing law, show us how it doesn't work.
All of the U.S. temporary foreign work visas require employers initiate and direct the process, not the prospective foreign employee. At least that is what I see by perusing the requirements for the various types of visas. A foreigner seeking just temporary work must first somehow find an employer or agent. And the employer or agent must show they tried to find employees locally.
That requirement sequence presents a Catch-22 to many foreigners. I suspect this means only the largest employers can afford the paperwork overhead cost to establish employment hubs in foreign countries to bypass that Catch-22 so as to bring in low cost labor. No way small employers with modest temp needs would be able to justify the up-front cost.
This is what I found regarding two of the most common temp work visas (ag and non-ag work):
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers (https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers)
"H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers
The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. A U.S. employer, a U.S. agent as described in the regulations, or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf."
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers (https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers)
"H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers
The H-2B program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs. A U.S. employer, or U.S. employer, or U.S. agent as described in the regulations, must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf."
-
All of the U.S. temporary foreign work visas require employers initiate and direct the process, not the prospective foreign employee. At least that is what I see by perusing the requirements for the various types of visas. A foreigner seeking just temporary work must first somehow find an employer or agent. And the employer or agent must show they tried to find employees locally.
That requirement sequence presents a Catch-22 to many foreigners. I suspect this means only the largest employers can afford the paperwork overhead cost to establish employment hubs in foreign countries to bypass that Catch-22 so as to bring in low cost labor. No way small employers with modest temp needs would be able to justify the up-front cost.
This is what I found regarding two of the most common temp work visas (ag and non-ag work):
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers (https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers)
"H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers
The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. A U.S. employer, a U.S. agent as described in the regulations, or an association of U.S. agricultural producers named as a joint employer must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf."
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers (https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers)
"H-2B Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers
The H-2B program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs. A U.S. employer, or U.S. employer, or U.S. agent as described in the regulations, must file Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, on a prospective worker’s behalf."
So you are advocating that a foreign national should be able to be admitted “to look for work”??
Smaller companies can use agencies to recruit seasonal workers.
I still fail to see what needs to be “streamlined”.
By the way, your use of yellow font makes it near impossible to read.
-
So you are advocating that a foreign national should be able to be admitted “to look for work”??
That's pretty much the way it works for any resident in an EU country: they can travel to any other EU country and look for work without a visa or sponsor. And Germany provides a "job seeker" visa (https://chancenkarte.com/en/candidates/ (https://chancenkarte.com/en/candidates/)) even for non-EU residents.
Smaller companies can use agencies to recruit seasonal workers.
I know that locally "Wall Drug" recruits foreign workers for the summer season. Have no idea if they use an agency. Unemployment is always very low in SD, so finding workers is always hard.
I still fail to see what needs to be “streamlined”.
The US doesn't appear in this list of easiest countries to get a work permit, indicating the US system isn't that streamlined:
https://visaguide.world/tips/easiest-countries-work-visa/ (https://visaguide.world/tips/easiest-countries-work-visa/)
By the way, your use of yellow font makes it near impossible to read.
Sorry about that - I used the "orange" color but it isn't very good. I edited it to red. Next time I'll stick to italics only.
-
We have a very large Indian community here. Also. I've noticed many from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Africa. Most here on H1B Visas. They are overunning the region and dominating IT and other tech positions in big companies like Vanguard, which is local to me as well as large Pharma corps Pfizer and Merck.
There are entire subdivisions that are almost 100% Indian. If the process is so difficult, how did all of them get here in the past several years?
-
Ok, I'm relieved to hear that our immigration system is so efficient and easy to navigate. So now I'm wondering what all the fuss is about.
Perhaps we need to make it more difficult to get in so all those Gen-Zers can get construction and roofing jobs, or become migrant tomato pickers or dishwashers or hotel maids.
-
Ok, I'm relieved to hear that our immigration system is so efficient and easy to navigate. So now I'm wondering what all the fuss is about.
So tell us your personal experience with regards to the immigration system? Obviously you've helped someone or you wouldn't be complaining about it.
Perhaps we need to make it more difficult to get in so all those Gen-Zers can get construction and roofing jobs, or become migrant tomato pickers or dishwashers or hotel maids.
Perhaps we should demand our government enforce our laws they crafted and adopted. What a concept huh?
So tell us your personal experience with regards to the immigration system? Obviously you've helped someone or you wouldn't be complaining about it.
-
That's pretty much the way it works for any resident in an EU country: they can travel to any other EU country and look for work without a visa or sponsor.
How about something more realistic, such as someone outside the EU wanting to immigrate? Now you will find those laws to be a bit more complex.
The US doesn't appear in this list of easiest countries to get a work permit, indicating the US system isn't that streamlined:
https://visaguide.world/tips/easiest-countries-work-visa
(https://visaguide.world/tips/easiest-countries-work-visa/)
You are comparing these countries to the US:
Estonia
Lithuania
Iceland
Latvia
Slovakia
Luxembourg
Czechia
Germany
Go ask any German national how that process is working for them? (for the record, I have relatives in Germany). Don't be surprised to see Germany make drastic changes in their immigration system in the future. Currently it's a disaster.
For the rest of those countries on that list, be advised those countries while making it easy to get in and "look" for a job, they do not allow job seekers to get on welfare or public assistance. They also do not allow anyone in without vetting them first. And they do not tolerate letting them stay beyond their visa expiration. Oh, and they expect these job seekers to speak the language and respect the local customs.
-
why do companies hiring illegals get a free ride?
-
So tell us your personal experience with regards to the immigration system? Obviously you've helped someone or you wouldn't be complaining about it.
Ok,
For one I knew a young man from Spain (Tomas). My MIL (a naturalized citizen) sponsored him to come here on an education visa. He got a BA and MS in hospitality management and graduated on Dean's list and President's list. He worked at a local hotel the whole time, but when he graduated, he couldn't get a work visa so he had to leave the country, even though his employer pleaded his case.
For another, I helped the husband of one of my employees start a roofing company. He started small; just he and his brother. But they got busy and had to hire help. That was a nightmare. The few Americans he hired would come in late, take long smoke and lunch breaks and did about half the work the (legal) Mexicans did. And they took way more sick days, even without pay.
He got even busier and had to hire more and all he could find that would were illegals from Mexico and South America (mostly Columbia). He couldn't have stayed in business if he didn't hire illegals, and as a matter of fact, he went out of business because of the labor situation even though he was booked almost a year in advance.
So now you answer my question:
If our system is working so well, why do so many people sneak in, and even pay thousands of dollars to mules to get them here?
why do companies hiring illegals get a free ride?
Because Rs want the cheap labor that illegals have to accept and Ds want the votes.
-
We can’t ignore the elephant in the room. The American consumer goes for lower prices, every time. Then bitches about illegals or cheap Chinese quality, when it is their own buying habits that drive these dynamics.
The “evil corporations” that hire illegals aren’t simply pocketing the money as more profit; they also pass it on to the consumer in the form of lower prices. The problem is that it’s no longer a closed system. Once we opened up the economy (globalism) we found ourselves on unequal footing with inferior economies.
Hence migrants will accept wages much lower than Americans because it has more buying power back in their shithole country where they send it back to their relatives. Americans are happy to pay less for their migrant picked produce. And it’s not simply selfishness, many Americans are forced to demand low prices because of the way big government has vacuumed up the economy leaving a much bigger lower class than if they’d be hands off and let us thrive.
Government stifles the economy, while opening it up to the global uneven playing field, results in degradation of prices and quality! Compare the quality of everything today to 50 years ago. It’s all shit, and it’s all cheap, yet half the country can barely afford it much less pay the higher price if we got rid of all migrant labor or shut off trade with China.
We’ve gotten ourselves into quite a pickle. Trump’s idea to move back to a more isolationist stance is fundamentally correct however it will not be a painless process.
-
Ok,
For one I knew a young man from Spain (Tomas). My MIL (a naturalized citizen) sponsored him to come here on an education visa. He got a BA and MS in hospitality management and graduated on Dean's list and President's list. He worked at a local hotel the whole time, but when he graduated, he couldn't get a work visa so he had to leave the country, even though his employer pleaded his case.
For another, I helped the husband of one of my employees start a roofing company. He started small; just he and his brother. But they got busy and had to hire help. That was a nightmare. The few Americans he hired would come in late, take long smoke and lunch breaks and did about half the work the (legal) Mexicans did. And they took way more sick days, even without pay.
He got even busier and had to hire more and all he could find that would were illegals from Mexico and South America (mostly Columbia). He couldn't have stayed in business if he didn't hire illegals, and as a matter of fact, he went out of business because of the labor situation even though he was booked almost a year in advance.
So now you answer my question:
If our system is working so well, why do so many people sneak in, and even pay thousands of dollars to mules to get them here?Because Rs want the cheap labor that illegals have to accept and Ds want the votes.
Your first story leaves out a few details so you can make your point. Whatever.
Second, you still resort back to the liberal talking points. The current immigration laws will work only if they are enforced.
The establishment doesn’t want enforcement, period. They want an open border to supply cheap labor. As to why they demand new laws to “streamline” the process? So they can include mass amnesty and import more voters.
As far as citizens refusing to work? Why should they when our present government rewards them not to work?
The solution is simple. Enforce the laws as written, and stop incentivizing people not to work.
-
So now you answer my question:
If our system is working so well, why do so many people sneak in, and even pay thousands of dollars to mules to get them here?Because Rs want the cheap labor that illegals have to accept and Ds want the votes.
The reason so many sneak in or pay the cartels is simple. Free Stuff.
The current regime offers free flights, a new cell phone with free service, free medical, free food, free housing, free education. Who living in a third world country wouldn’t want that chance, especially knowing there would be no repercussions.
So let’s remove all the free stuff, shut down the border and make them obey our law. Think that would change things?
-
The establishment doesn’t want enforcement, period. They want an open border to supply cheap labor. As to why they demand new laws to “streamline” the process? So they can include mass amnesty and import more voters.
Yes. Cheap labor, and even more important than votes, boost populations in blue states that are hemorrhaging people and at risk of losing house seats! This is why the current fight over whether or not to count illegals in the upcoming census.
-
The reason so many sneak in or pay the cartels is simple. Free Stuff.
The current regime offers free flights, a new cell phone with free service, free medical, free food, free housing, free education. Who living in a third world country wouldn’t want that chance, especially knowing there would be no repercussions.
So let’s remove all the free stuff, shut down the border and make them obey our law. Think that would change things?
I'm not sure if you even notice this, but we agree on more than we disagree on. But for some reason, you just feel like you have to disagree with me.
We both want to seal the border.
We both want to deport illegals.
We both want to stop the "free stuff" to both illegals and able-bodied citizens.
The only difference I see is that I want to see the legal immigration system enhanced, sped up and improved.
You might disagree with that last sentence, but that is just your opinion vs my opinion. Neither opinion can be proven right or wrong.
I'm not saying we need pile a whole new bunch of laws on the old laws, or that we need to ditch the old laws and make new replacement laws. But we do need to tweak some laws (and NO, I'm not going to detail which laws for you). We need to boost the number of legal immigrants and we need to enhance the documentation and tracking of these immigrants. And we need to restrict some of the benefits the average American gets until they either earn a green card or attain citizenship. And a work and tax history must be part of earning both of those, along with learning the language.
Of course though, if you think everything is perfect the way it is, then I see why you don't want to change anything.
But I believe that if the system isn't working, there is something wrong with the system.
-
I'm not sure if you even notice this, but we agree on more than we disagree on. But for some reason, you just feel like you have to disagree with me.
We both want to seal the border.
We both want to deport illegals.
We both want to stop the "free stuff" to both illegals and able-bodied citizens.
The only difference I see is that I want to see the legal immigration system enhanced, sped up and improved.
You might disagree with that last sentence, but that is just your opinion vs my opinion. Neither opinion can be proven right or wrong.
I'm not saying we need pile a whole new bunch of laws on the old laws, or that we need to ditch the old laws and make new replacement laws. But we do need to tweak some laws (and NO, I'm not going to detail which laws for you). We need to boost the number of legal immigrants and we need to enhance the documentation and tracking of these immigrants. And we need to restrict some of the benefits the average American gets until they either earn a green card or attain citizenship. And a work and tax history must be part of earning both of those, along with learning the language.
Of course though, if you think everything is perfect the way it is, then I see why you don't want to change anything.
But I believe that if the system isn't working, there is something wrong with the system.
Like you I just have anecdotal stories about those who come legally. My sister in law who had to jump through all kinds of hoops to become a citizen. She’s white and from the UK so doesn’t check idpol boxes; just another evil white Western European. They don’t seem particularly interested in smoothing the way for that type.
The bureaucratic hoops my brother had to jump through to legally adopt my Hispanic nieces and bring them to the U.S. How dare Hispanics actually try to come legally.
It totally pisses me off when they go through that but the Dems let all sorts of unvetted, unvaxed, etc., waltz in over the border, and now they don’t even have to be physically processed; they’re ramping up an app where you just check in on your cellphone and you’re in the U.S. as a “refugee”. Get a free ticket to some sanctuary city or disappear into the interior.
The issue isn’t even the cheap migrant labor. They’re coming from China, the MidEast, Russia, Africa, India, Eastern Europe, groups that aren’t the least interested in picking fruit, but many who are no doubt on nefarious missions. No, most of them aren’t and are just looking for a better life. But you only need a small few to sabotage our electric grid, set bombs off in metropolitan areas, infiltrate data systems, etc. We have a right and a duty to carefully vet anyone entering our borders.
What we all three agree on is that this shit needs to be shut down NOW. But Biden will do all he can to let in as many as he can before Jan 20. I can’t fucking wait for Jan 20!!
-
We can’t ignore the elephant in the room. The American consumer goes for lower prices, every time.
Of course the consumer goes for lower prices! Why wouldn't he?
The REAL elephant in the room is that we're being taxed to death. One income per household doesn't cut it, and now two incomes doesn't cut it as well. Our corrupt government created this problem and refuse to take responsibility for it.
-
Of course the consumer goes for lower prices! Why wouldn't he?
The REAL elephant in the room is that we're being taxed to death. One income per household doesn't cut it, and now two incomes doesn't cut it as well. Our corrupt government created this problem and refuse to take responsibility for it.
Yep. That’s what I mean by “vacuuming up the economy”. Years ago I heard (I think it was Milton Friedman) that 60% of what we earn goes to the government, in the form of direct taxes and indirect taxes, and the cost of government regulation. I think it is much higher than that now.
-
I'm not sure if you even notice this, but we agree on more than we disagree on. But for some reason, you just feel like you have to disagree with me.
You poor thing...........
-
The last few "immigration reform" bills to come through congress have all included amnesty.
The whole "we need to clean up immigration" to "we need to streamline immigration" are nothing more than trojan horses to slip through amnesty.
-
You poor thing...........
The comeback of last resort ;D
-
The comeback of last resort ;D
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fmemes%2F4585256.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=414f6c8b131683c2defff0d005cbeee1ef76ce66a072909479d92b6fd2d45f40&ipo=images)
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Fmemes%2F4585256.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=414f6c8b131683c2defff0d005cbeee1ef76ce66a072909479d92b6fd2d45f40&ipo=images)
You hate it when I'm right, don't you?
-
You hate it when I'm right, don't you?
Quoting your wife again?
-
Quoting your wife again?
Yeah, maybe. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
-
You poor thing...........
Nobody cares how you feel about others. With that info I have saved you future typing. You can thank me in your usual way.
-
A few historical highlights of American immigration laws:
- Control of immigration isn't one of the enumerated powers listed in the constitution. "If you peruse the list of federal powers in Articles I and II of the Constitution, a general power to restrict immigration is notable by its absence. It just simply is not there. That is not because the Framers only included a small number of very important powers and then left the rest to implication. To the contrary, Article I contains a long and detailed list of congressional powers, including comparatively minor ones, such as the authority to establish “post roads” and “fix the Standards of Weights and Measures.” If the Framers had wanted to give the federal government so massively important a power as the authority to ban immigration, one would think they would have clearly said so. ... The idea that the federal government lacks general power over immigration seems radical today. But it was actually the dominant view during the Founding era and for many years thereafter. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” and Thomas Jefferson were among its many exponents."(URL 1)
- The Constitutional Convention’s decision to only grant the federal government authority over naturalization meant that states regulated immigration as part of their policing powers—banishing criminals and noncitizens, denying entry to the poor, and even attempting to ban whole races.(URL 2)
- Immigration requirements were originally fairly simple: "...Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, extending citizenship to free white persons of good character who had resided in the United States for two years and took an oath of allegiance. The law excluded indentured servants, non-whites, and slaves from naturalization. Despite these exclusions, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was arguably the most liberal naturalization law to date, as it created a short and uniform path to citizenship that lacked gender requirements, religious tests, skills tests, or country of origin requirements."(URL 2)
- While there were attempts to change things, such as increasing the naturalization period to 21 years, the laws remained fairly unchanged up to the Civil War era.
- The Civil War created a demand for labor and laws were passed to encourage immigration - Homestead Act of 1862 and Contract Labor Act of 1864.
- The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was the first time a cap was placed on immigrants per year. The caps applied only to immigration from Europe and Asia. North and South Americas countries had no caps. The Act took years to enforce and required the creation of the Border Patrol.
- During the depression, in 1933 over 1 million "illegal" Mexicans were deported (about 60% were legal citizens) with the expectation that their jobs would go to native-born Americans. Instead unemployment increased rather than decreased.
- WWII created demand for labor, so the Bracero Program was creates to bring in temporary Mexican workers. When it was temporarily halted in 1947 illegal immigration increased.
- Operation Wetback was another deportation attempt in 1954 that removed almost a million illegal Mexican immigrants.
The second link below is an article titled A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy from the Colonial Period to the Present Day and I learned quite a bit from it. Cato organization's bias is libertarian-leaning for anyone willing to read it.
(URL 1) https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration/ (https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration/)
(URL 2) https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day)
-
A few historical highlights of American immigration laws:
- Control of immigration isn't one of the enumerated powers listed in the constitution. "If you peruse the list of federal powers in Articles I and II of the Constitution, a general power to restrict immigration is notable by its absence. It just simply is not there. That is not because the Framers only included a small number of very important powers and then left the rest to implication. To the contrary, Article I contains a long and detailed list of congressional powers, including comparatively minor ones, such as the authority to establish “post roads” and “fix the Standards of Weights and Measures.” If the Framers had wanted to give the federal government so massively important a power as the authority to ban immigration, one would think they would have clearly said so. ... The idea that the federal government lacks general power over immigration seems radical today. But it was actually the dominant view during the Founding era and for many years thereafter. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” and Thomas Jefferson were among its many exponents."(URL 1)
- The Constitutional Convention’s decision to only grant the federal government authority over naturalization meant that states regulated immigration as part of their policing powers—banishing criminals and noncitizens, denying entry to the poor, and even attempting to ban whole races.(URL 2)
- Immigration requirements were originally fairly simple: "...Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, extending citizenship to free white persons of good character who had resided in the United States for two years and took an oath of allegiance. The law excluded indentured servants, non-whites, and slaves from naturalization. Despite these exclusions, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was arguably the most liberal naturalization law to date, as it created a short and uniform path to citizenship that lacked gender requirements, religious tests, skills tests, or country of origin requirements."(URL 2)
- While there were attempts to change things, such as increasing the naturalization period to 21 years, the laws remained fairly unchanged up to the Civil War era.
- The Civil War created a demand for labor and laws were passed to encourage immigration - Homestead Act of 1862 and Contract Labor Act of 1864.
- The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was the first time a cap was placed on immigrants per year. The caps applied only to immigration from Europe and Asia. North and South Americas countries had no caps. The Act took years to enforce and required the creation of the Border Patrol.
- During the depression, in 1933 over 1 million "illegal" Mexicans were deported (about 60% were legal citizens) with the expectation that their jobs would go to native-born Americans. Instead unemployment increased rather than decreased.
- WWII created demand for labor, so the Bracero Program was creates to bring in temporary Mexican workers. When it was temporarily halted in 1947 illegal immigration increased.
- Operation Wetback was another deportation attempt in 1954 that removed almost a million illegal Mexican immigrants.
The second link below is an article titled A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy from the Colonial Period to the Present Day and I learned quite a bit from it. Cato organization's bias is libertarian-leaning for anyone willing to read it.
(URL 1) https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration/ (https://www.cato-unbound.org/2018/09/12/ilya-somin/does-constitution-give-federal-government-power-over-immigration/)
(URL 2) https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day (https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day)
And yet no one can cite the actual laws that need changing or "streamlining".
-
Ok, I'm relieved to hear that our immigration system is so efficient and easy to navigate. So now I'm wondering what all the fuss is about.
Perhaps we need to make it more difficult to get in so all those Gen-Zers can get construction and roofing jobs, or become migrant tomato pickers or dishwashers or hotel maids.
How about electricians, plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, machinists, etc? Well paying, skilled trades.
Yes, we need to make it more difficult, like 99% of the other countries on Earth.
::)
-
And yet no one can cite the actual laws that need changing or "streamlining".
Correct.
If my foot is rotting with gangrene, I know there is a problem, but I'm not going to tell the doctor how to fix it.
I'll trust Trump and his excellent cabinet to figure out how to fix it.
The system is broken. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion and Trump probably wouldn't have won. But you seem to think everything is just hunky dory and we don't need to change anything except enforce the rules that clearly aren't working.
-
Correct.
If my foot is rotting with gangrene, I know there is a problem, but I'm not going to tell the doctor how to fix it.
I'll trust Trump and his excellent cabinet to figure out how to fix it.
The system is broken. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion and Trump probably wouldn't have won. But you seem to think everything is just hunky dory and we don't need to change anything except enforce the rules that clearly aren't working.
Just pointing out that using liberal talking points with no knowledge of the process or the laws doesn't make a valid argument.
I'll wait while you ask your wife how you should reply. ;)
-
Just pointing out that using liberal talking points with no knowledge of the process or the laws doesn't make a valid argument.
I'll wait while you ask your wife how you should reply. ;)
::)
-
I can give an example of how things were when I was a teenager. This would be from 1957-69, I worked at what was then the largest evergreen nursery in the country. In the summer they needed a lot of help to function. A large contingent of Mexicans would come in to work the summer period and the nursery provided them with housing for the summer. Come fall when things slowed down they would go back to Mexico until the next summer. Payday was on Friday and they would all head down to the bank to cash their checks. There was a group that would then party and would not show up for work on Saturday. One of the older men was the guy that mixed the soil for potting new plants. That was a job that was looked up to. One day he just quit showing up, not sure what happened ro don't remember, but in the end that job fell to me and as a teenager I got to run the Bobcat and mix the soil and do a lot of other cool jobs around the nursery. Made it a lot of fun.
-
The problem is complex but there is a wide perspective. The big picture is this: Man’s journey is always about exploration, travel, colonization and in the process displacing other populations. Man builds a civilization, it grows, matures, rots and weakens, then is overrun by “barbarians”.
In reality there is no permanent land ownership or political borders. We fight over territory just like wolves, birds, chimpanzees or lobsters (nod to JP).
White European man overran the Americas and displaced (also destroyed, inadvertently with smallpox or otherwise) the native civilizations and populations (they weren’t all civilized). This was possible because they had a vastly superior culture and technology.
In fact, the Northern European humans were so advanced they spearheaded the rapid explosion of industrialization that spread around the world and led to the globalized economy we have today. (This is not to say they were superior morally as humans; they had become advanced due to evolution in harsh ice age conditions and with the geography of Europe which was highly conducive to water navigation and enabled ship development.)
But all civilizations have a life cycle. The more prosperous they become, the fewer children they have, hence the seeds of their own inevitable decline. A civilization’s power lies in two things: Resources and people. That’s it. You must have both. White Europeans and Americans have stopped making enough new humans to replace themselves.
Meanwhile less prosperous peoples look upon them with envy and decide to raid. Not yet being advanced, they are still reproducing like rabbits and so eventually outnumber the advanced peoples. So raiding becomes less risky and more likely to eventually succeed - in taking over completely.
Whites took this land from the Indians (sorry, not sorry. I’m sick of political correctness)* and now somebody else is taking it from the whites, plus whomever else identifies as “natively” American, such as black descendants of slaves, who are every bit as entitled to ownership of this land; the whites gave them that when they brought them here against their will.
That’s all that’s happening. Just like for the past millions of years migratory displacement is occurring in our species. But we are a highly territorial species and so have every right to defend our land by whatever means is necessary. There is no moral imperative other than following our nature. There’s no obligation to take in the disadvantaged or the persecuted from other tribes, certainly not enable them to lie and take advantage of our largess.
When the country was founded and at other times we encouraged immigration because we had resources but not enough people. We took in people and made them our own: They assimilated. That’s not what’s happening now. Now it’s a raid with many people looking not to assimilate but to invade, displace and re-establish a new dynasty. The Muslims want Sharia law, the Chinese want our land (they’re literally buying it, in addition to sending single young males over the border illegally) not to become American but to defeat our system of government and our world dominance. These are mixed in with people who do simply want to assimilate and have “The American Dream”.
Ultimately in a thousand years we will have something involving descendants of racial mixing of all these different people which also has always happened throughout our evolution as a species. (The Neanderthal live on in us.) Who knows what system of government we have or if we still call it “The United States”.
*Renaming Indians Native American is so fucking stupid. I’m native American; I was born here. Don’t tell me it was stupid to call them Indians in the first place, everybody knows what you mean. It wasn’t a problem until Indian Indians from India started coming over here. Figure out some other way to distinguish them, but I am calling myself a “native” American. I was born here, and I’m an American. So suck on that.
-
And yet no one can cite the actual laws that need changing or "streamlining".
The entirety of the immigration laws and regulations need removal but are too numerous to cite. Check my count, please, but I counted 157 Immigration Visa types in this document:
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html (https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html)
But of course you must think this bureaucratic detail is all just peachy keen. I presume it satisfies your authoritarian need to keep out the riff raff.
A few modifications to the laws as they were sometime before 1920 would work fine for me.
-
The entirety of the immigration laws and regulations need removal but are too numerous to cite. Check my count, please, but I counted 157 Immigration Visa types in this document:
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html (https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html)
But of course you must think this bureaucratic detail is all just peachy keen. I presume it satisfies your authoritarian need to keep out the riff raff.
A few modifications to the laws as they were sometime before 1920 would work fine for me.
I’m pointing out that the liberal talking point is “immigration reform” or “streamlining”, which is double speak for implementing a Trojan horse for amnesty.
And like most liberals bitching about how unfair the immigration laws are, they simply can’t cite which laws, much less of the actual language.
I went through the process with my family. Not a problem, and no long period of time. Of course, I made sure all paperwork was correct and submitted on time.
-
I’m pointing out that the liberal talking point is “immigration reform” or “streamlining”, which is double speak for implementing a Trojan horse for amnesty.
Which has nothing to do with what I said.
I went through the process with my family. Not a problem, and no long period of time. Of course, I made sure all paperwork was correct and submitted on time.
That was another time and is irrelevant today. My grandfather bought a cheap ticket on a tramp freighter from Genoa Italy headed to Ellis Island. He got off, got in line and was processed and was here legally. I don't know how long it took him to gain citizenship, but I do recall hearing how that was the happiest day of his life.
You can't do that today.
-
I’m pointing out that the liberal talking point is “immigration reform” or “streamlining”, which is double speak for implementing a Trojan horse for amnesty.
And like most liberals bitching about how unfair the immigration laws are, they simply can’t cite which laws, much less of the actual language.
At this point a simple amnesty would be a dangerous economic "moral hazard" to be avoided. No debate from me on that point if that is your concern.
I went through the process with my family. Not a problem, and no long period of time. Of course, I made sure all paperwork was correct and submitted on time.
Good for them. What part of the world did they come from and about when did this take place? I recall you mentioning this before in a post but don't recall those details. I vaguely remember perhaps from Europe, but not sure if I have you confused with someone else.
-
Good for them. What part of the world did they come from and about when did this take place? I recall you mentioning this before in a post but don't recall those details. I vaguely remember perhaps from Europe, but not sure if I have you confused with someone else.
SE Asia.