US Immigration and Border Security Thread

[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.

[Husar]

Yeah, well, it's probably like this: https://theconversation.com/limas-wa...nto-peru-53356

Just in one case they call it two communities, in the other two countries. The reasons for the divide, the nature of the divide, the ones who want the divide, all similar. It's always top-down class warfare while decrying every call for more equality as "class warfare"...

The robber barons of old now call themselves capitalists and run the government.

As for culture, that's what they tell the poor and stupid masses, "the immigrants, they have a different culture! be aware!". But their gated communities and country clubs have restricted access because they believe themselves to have a different, and better, culture than the poor people from their own country, too. And yet the poor consider them cultural peers, seemingly ignorant of the one-sidedness of that claim, yet always eager to please their masters for a job.

[Graphic]

I don't take the illegal immigration debate seriously even at its most basic level. Nations are an obsolete byproduct of the age of imperialism. Nations are for fascists.

[Montmorency]

Yeah, well, it's probably like this: https://theconversation.com/limas-wa...nto-peru-53356

Just in one case they call it two communities, in the other two countries. The reasons for the divide, the nature of the divide, the ones who want the divide, all similar. It's always top-down class warfare while decrying every call for more equality as "class warfare"...

The robber barons of old now call themselves capitalists and run the government.

As for culture, that's what they tell the poor and stupid masses, "the immigrants, they have a different culture! be aware!". But their gated communities and country clubs have restricted access because they believe themselves to have a different, and better, culture than the poor people from their own country, too. And yet the poor consider them cultural peers, seemingly ignorant of the one-sidedness of that claim, yet always eager to please their masters for a job.

I think you're looking for:



(I recommend the Mongolian version)

I don't take the illegal immigration debate seriously even at its most basic level. Nations are an obsolete byproduct of the age of imperialism. Nations are for fascists.

Leave aside nations and citizenship. In the moment that there is not a single authority governing the world, how should governments regulate individuals within their jurisdiction?

One could identify as anarchist, but still recognize that government regulation is a fact of the world, so what should that look like in our time?

[spmetla]

I don't take the illegal immigration debate seriously even at its most basic level. Nations are an obsolete byproduct of the age of imperialism. Nations are for fascists.

So you're advocating for classic anarcho-liberalism or for a global government with free movement of peoples?

Merely saying that you think the current situation is stupid,wrong, or obselete is a cop out of having to actually try and find solutions. What can be done now on this issue that would be in line with your future global government or lack of government? The least you could do is expound on how the current situation would be resolved in your hypothetical world. Would people just move where ever they wanted?

I've meant too many 'anarchists' in college that really just want to be in opposition to everything and denounce government, private property, and the use of money. Please make yourself a little different from my former roommates that would complain if someone ate 'their' frozen pizza or drank 'their beer' and didn't do their share to clean and maintain the community areas such as the living room and bathroom.

@ Hussar You're a socialist right? Why aren't you on board with the older socialist/communist idea that immigration is just a tool of the capitalists to undermine the strength of trade unions and prevent reforms from ever happening? Doesn't this "reserve army of labour/Industrielle Reservearmee" prevent the achievement of socialist goals by allowing the capitalists to keep wages depressed and workers vulnerable?

[Fragony]

I don't take the illegal immigration debate seriously even at its most basic level. Nations are an obsolete byproduct of the age of imperialism. Nations are for fascists.

Takes one to know one. (international)national socialism right. People who can't see reason have this 'FASCiST' reflex, but they don't recognise it when looking in the mirror