US Immigration and Border Security Thread

[Montmorency]

And the "shithole" moment is just exemplary of what Trump supporters love about him, so don't focus on the language, don't even focus on the discriminatory sentiment - the media needs to focus on who these people are and what they want to see in our country.

These Trump supporters are the kind of people who will absolutely agree that we need more whites and fewer "mudbloods", the kind of people who will sit there gathered with children in their presence and rant about how non-white breeding rates are threatening the racial order and that the US government should enact policies to suppress breeding by the blacks and browns and subsidize white birth rates, that America will be Great Again once it is White Again.

They genuinely believe, and have always believed, that all men are equal, but whites are the 'most' equal and to deny this is tantamount to special privilege for the uncivilized and genetically inferior darkies.

And the Republican Party has chosen to ride or die with these people, over and over for decades. They have cultivated these attitudes in fungal squalor.

And the Democrats chose to assimilate to this party in the hope of winning a few votes?

Remember the minor scandal of Melania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama's convention speech in 2016? Was the problem the plagiarism, or the fact that Michelle Obama gave a Republican-safe speech at the DNC in 2008? And this is the person some liberals want to run in 2020, merely because of her proximity to Barack and her not being a dunce.

Wheres the 'middle finger' emoticon? We need a few of those.

[spmetla]

And the "shithole" moment is just exemplary of what Trump supporters love about him, so don't focus on the language, don't even focus on the discriminatory sentiment - the media needs to focus on who these people are and what they want to see in our country.

They probably whole heatedly agree and will side with him over the political correctness every sane politician practices. They are against any America that is "Globalist" which seems to be anti caring about any other country or even how those countries persevere us because we are the greatest.

These Trump supporters are the kind of people who will absolutely agree that we need more whites and fewer "mudbloods", the kind of people who will sit there gathered with children in their presence and rant about how non-white breeding rates are threatening the racial order and that the US government should enact policies to suppress breeding by the blacks and browns and subsidize white birth rates, that America will be Great Again once it is White Again.

Sadly that's the line of the other end of the spectrum. One side is for totally open borders, the other for promotion of whites and white immigration.

Makes it very difficult for people such as myself that want merit or skills based immigration. Having Somali slums appear in Minnesota and Michigan from accepting too many refugees isn't acceptable but neither is not accepting any Somalis just because they are black or Muslim. If we accept people from all over that fill job vacancies that American workers aren't filling (we have many tradesman vacancies but a glut of college educated workers) we would be benefiting a lot as a nation. This would also speed up integration for said immigrants because opportunity and prosperity have always been the best tools for upward mobility and social acceptance for "new" Americans.

The fact of the matter us this, these stunts they are pulling, wether they be deporting Mexicans from corner stores or Haitians from their homes are merely red meat for a "working class" that they have no real answers for. They are trinkets and lead designed to hold the base together long enough so that the very rich can continue to pillage the community and the coffers.

The stunts and rhetoric have already negatively affected the kona coffee business here in Hawaii. The mass exodus of mexicans has created a labor shortage for coffee picking which is already paying many times what the rate was just a decade ago. The only takers for this unskilled seasonal employment here are micronesian immigrants (here in the US because we nuked their islands in the 50s) and low scale WWOOF workers. Legal immigrants do fly here and work the coffee season and then fly back to California but not enough to make up for the shortfall of pickers.

[Montmorency]

They probably whole heatedly agree and will side with him over the political correctness every sane politician practices.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's a matter of (dis)respecting people on the basis of race. And that's not a matter of wordplay or ass-covering, it's life or death.

One side is for totally open borders

I think you would be hard-pressed to find many in the Democratic party who wants that. What you might have noticed is that the Left (as opposed to Democratic politicians in power) is increasingly unwilling to harshly punish people who actually do make it in for the mere fact of lacking authorization to be here.

Also, ICE is a flat-out scary organization.

Makes it very difficult for people such as myself that want merit or skills based immigration.

The same conservative wellspring could then suggest the argument: 'We're importing educated people to the detriment of their homelands, educated people who will edge out our own high-skilled labor, whose education likely cost much more compared to the immigrants'. These skilled and educated immigrants will furthermore have at best a mercenary attitude toward this country, being here to maximize their own profit, and finding it difficult to shift over their extended family networks from their home country toward permanent resettlement and integration.'

The point of immigration shouldn't be to make money for millionaires and international elites. Whether you believe in the brotherhood of mankind, an American exceptionalist legacy, or our overall social and economic health from a narrow national perspective, we need a wide spectrum of permanent immigration in the long term.

Wide in terms of nationality of origin, age, gender, education and skillset, etc.

[spmetla]

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's a matter of (dis)respecting people on the basis of race. And that's not a matter of wordplay or ass-covering, it's life or death.

I agree with you completely there. His base however will assume that his comments are the norm and that he's just brave for voicing it instead of seeing the awfulness of what he said.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find many in the Democratic party who wants that. What you might have noticed is that the Left (as opposed to Democratic politicians in power) is increasingly unwilling to harshly punish people who actually do make it in for the mere fact of lacking authorization to be here.

Also, ICE is a flat-out scary organization.

Perhaps not democrats but there is a strong open-border group within this country that see free immigration as a right for anyhow who wants to. The same people think that refugees have right to flee to which ever country they choose. The US can handle a lot of immigration and integrate those people effectively but to do so beyond what the economy can support or need means slums and poverty here.

The same conservative wellspring could then suggest the argument: 'We're importing educated people to the detriment of their homelands, educated people who will edge out our own high-skilled labor, whose education likely cost much more compared to the immigrants'. These skilled and educated immigrants will furthermore have at best a mercenary attitude toward this country, being here to maximize their own profit, and finding it difficult to shift over their extended family networks from their home country toward permanent resettlement and integration.

People at that income level though can at the very least afford to relocate or retrain if necessary. The bottom end of society is stuck with whatever work is within reach of where they can travel and what they can afford. For a lot of employers in rural areas like mine not having a car equals unreliable prospective employee and therefore a non-hire.

There's are reason that once people slip into the pit of poverty or homelessness that climbing out becomes harder and harder.

The point of immigration shouldn't be to make money for millionaires and international elites. Whether you believe in the brotherhood of mankind, an American exceptionalist legacy, or our overall social and economic health from a narrow national perspective, we need a wide spectrum of permanent immigration in the long term.

I agree whole-heartedly but the quantity is what needs to be restricted. Too much immigration during economic down turns keeps wages, too depressed. Too little during boom times raises wages too quickly and makes those companies less competitive.
The amount of immigration should be adjusted according to the state of the economy.

Of the dozens of Afghan interpreters I worked with about ten wanted me to sponsor their immigration to the US of those I only helped three apply for a special immigration visa. Only one of them was accepted. For those that I didn't help at all I explained to them that life in the US isn't as easy as they think. You can't just own a car and then be a taxi. Having something to sell doesn't mean you can just sell it. A former teacher in Afghanistan doesn't have the certificates to teach in the US. Someone who operated heavy equipment in Afghanistan is not allowed to do the same in the US without the right equipment licenses. Western society has a lot of regulations, bureaucracy and red tape to work through not to mention the cost of living in insane. Merit and skill set based immigration would allow people that can integrate to come in and be directed toward employment.
The gap in how people live, work, and learn in the "West" and the rest of the world has broadened a lot in the last 100 years. There's far more needed to successfully integrate nowadays than merely a willingness to learn the language and hard work. The path from unskilled laborer to relative success and the "American Dream" is no longer as straight as it was for my great great grandfather in 1907.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Wide in terms of nationality of origin, age, gender, education and skillset, etc.

No objections, as long as they emigrate to the USA legally.

[Fragony]

There is nothing wrong about protecting your borders, a wall isn't watertight but makes it much more difficult

[Montmorency]

The same people think that refugees have right to flee to which ever country they choose.

Technically, I don't think asylum seekers have any international-legal obligation to optimize by geographic distance the country in which they make their claim. If that doesn't suit you, you would need something like a $100-billion endowment for a US/UN program to administer refugees throughout the world near their zone of origin. I think that would be a good idea regardless, but its absence isn't a basis for discrimination.

People at that income level though can at the very least afford to relocate or retrain if necessary. The bottom end of society is stuck with whatever work is within reach of where they can travel and what they can afford. For a lot of employers in rural areas like mine not having a car equals unreliable prospective employee and therefore a non-hire.

There's are reason that once people slip into the pit of poverty or homelessness that climbing out becomes harder and harder.


I agree whole-heartedly but the quantity is what needs to be restricted. Too much immigration during economic down turns keeps wages, too depressed. Too little during boom times raises wages too quickly and makes those companies less competitive.
The amount of immigration should be adjusted according to the state of the economy.

Of the dozens of Afghan interpreters I worked with about ten wanted me to sponsor their immigration to the US of those I only helped three apply for a special immigration visa. Only one of them was accepted. For those that I didn't help at all I explained to them that life in the US isn't as easy as they think. You can't just own a car and then be a taxi. Having something to sell doesn't mean you can just sell it. A former teacher in Afghanistan doesn't have the certificates to teach in the US. Someone who operated heavy equipment in Afghanistan is not allowed to do the same in the US without the right equipment licenses. Western society has a lot of regulations, bureaucracy and red tape to work through not to mention the cost of living in insane. Merit and skill set based immigration would allow people that can integrate to come in and be directed toward employment.
The gap in how people live, work, and learn in the "West" and the rest of the world has broadened a lot in the last 100 years. There's far more needed to successfully integrate nowadays than merely a willingness to learn the language and hard work. The path from unskilled laborer to relative success and the "American Dream" is no longer as straight as it was for my great great grandfather in 1907.

That's much more of a domestic policy and social problem though, and while there is an argument that we could prioritize building a better society before before addressing immigration, the reality is that "progress" doesn't work on that sort of videogamey linear and serial scale. In other words, you have to juggle multiple issues at once. On this forum, I don't think it's controversial to suggest that that poor and marginal groups in America, including recent immigrants, need to be getting more support across the board.

On the issue of Afghan (and Iraqi) interpreters: I don't know the details of what exactly the US government promised these people, but I do recall that we have been violating our promises*, and anyway these people, as collaborators, may be in special danger from our enemies. Isn't the most ethical course of action to admit as many of them as possible barring serious disqualifying issues or security risks? Even if many of them may not do well in the US, they will arguably do better than in Afghanistan or Iraq. There is also the reputational damage to consider in "abandoning" them after their service.

*As I pointed out above, given that progress is neither serial nor linear, the fact that the government and armed forces regularly break their promises to our citizen recruits does not justify doing it to foreign auxiliaries and collaborators.

No objections, as long as they emigrate to the USA legally.

How far are you willing to go in handling people who are not authorized to be here? Or have authorization, but lose it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd like to see them all politely rounded up and sent home. The numbers involved and the cost of doing so probably make this a non starter.

So, take the kind of steps Strike was suggesting to curtail the "import-a-mignon" behavior is more necessary than a physical wall. Then we need a better set up system for issued work visas etc. If our industries need workers, then they should be legally allowed to come in to work etc.

We need to REALLY work on keeping down the number of incoming illegals and slowly process the others through. Maybe permissive with permanent residency status but not amnesty'd citizenship etc.

[Montmorency]

I'd like to see them all politely rounded up and sent home. The numbers involved and the cost of doing so probably make this a non starter.

So, take the kind of steps Strike was suggesting to curtail the "import-a-mignon" behavior is more necessary than a physical wall. Then we need a better set up system for issued work visas etc. If our industries need workers, then they should be legally allowed to come in to work etc.

We need to REALLY work on keeping down the number of incoming illegals and slowly process the others through. Maybe permissive with permanent residency status but not amnesty'd citizenship etc.

Revamped work visas, Mexican stability, and ameliorated crisis in Central America would take care of it, but even then you have to recall that illegal immigration by land is at an historic low, so it's mostly an issue of Central American refugees and work visa abuse (often an employer-side abuse rather than a choice by visa-holders; shocking how a work visa scenario can turn into a human trafficking scenario). And the Central American refugees - they are indeed refugees - are entirely our problem. We made this.

So how could a desire to create an environment of fear and impunity for mostly-Mexican aliens who have been residing in the country for decades - how could it be fueled anything other than hatred and spite? Someone who declaims illegal immigration should designate long-term resident aliens as the least priority. But a lot of Republicans really just want to see these people suffer; it's not even about policy to them.

Punish abusive employers, restrain the big corporations, and repatriate individuals, all prior to any comprehensive reform. As for the rest of the aliens, if you can't accept outright amnesty at least take a moratorium on harassing them.

Edit: Also important to keep in mind, the 1996 Clinton immigration reform, partly by making crossings more difficult and dangerous, is what established the massive modern population of long-term unauthorized residents. And that's while stripping the target population of various rights and procedural remedies, and making the process more abusive overall.