CDZ IMMIGRATION: Not what it is but what it should be.

[Picaro]

It is just that the law should be fair, reasonable, enforceable, necessary, and above all applied equally without favoritism or prejudice.

So how do you write a law for the DACA families that does not give them favoritism over all others who are applying for visas to work and live in the USA?

We don't have to be 'fair' or be concerned about 'equal application of law' re criminal illegal aliens.

People that are faking being all concerned about the DACA Kidz are more than free to personally sponsor as many as they want to; the INS website has the forms and details on how to go about sponsoring aliens and immigrants for those who want to, and obviously few of these 'activists' seem to want to for some reason ... why is that? Sean Penn can put up hundreds, as could many of these well off star 'activists'.

 

[Darkwind]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

I would love to participate, but I think this is the wrong focus for immigration. This would be fine to discuss AFTER we discuss the limits (pure numbers) of immigrants we will permit to enter the US in any given year.

The reason we can no longer keep up with our infrastructure in this country is that we import to many people and their extended families.

I offer this as a reason we should be discussing immigration control.

Note: This discussion was in 2010. The problem hasn't gone away or become better.

 

[danielpalos]

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in.

The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries

Most countries have some version of these programs.

Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.

On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.

A, B, C are fine. Tho in the case of refugees, there shouldn't be an immediate assumption that they are on a path to citizenship. Refugee status should be treated as temporary. UNLESS the people coming here to STAY ALIVE honestly DECLARE they love the USA and chose to come here on principles. Not simply to survive.

Lottery is brain-dead policy. No logic or reason for that. And family sponsored immigration needs SOME restrictions and pledges of support from the sponsors.

Refugees in my opinion are a different topic with different criteria and different applicable laws than immigrant. I don't want illegals would are unable or unwilling to obtain immigrant status claiming to be refugees just to get ahead of everybody else. So I think refugees should have their own thread, otherwise we will be dragged off into all sorts of international issues and such.

Otherwise we seem to be pretty much on the same page except that I checked #1 through #10 without reservation.

the right wing alleges to be for, "smaller government".

If they aren't applying for Citizenship; they Must be Tourists.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

I would love to participate, but I think this is the wrong focus for immigration. This would be fine to discuss AFTER we discuss the limits (pure numbers) of immigrants we will permit to enter the US in any given year.

The reason we can no longer keep up with our infrastructure in this country is that we import to many people and their extended families.

I offer this as a reason we should be discussing immigration control.

Note: This discussion was in 2010. The problem hasn't gone away or become better.

We already have immigration laws regulating the number of legal immigrants who will be admitted each year. The problem isn't the number of legal immigrants though that certainly should be part of the discussion. But it seems really silly to me to discuss how many legal immigrants when we have an official 11-12 illegals--more like 20+ by some theories--already here. The issue of who is legal relates more to the lottery system instead of issuing permanent visas to those who merit being here, i.e. No. 5 on the poll list.

In my opinion if all or most of the suggestions in the poll were adopted as law, then it would be a fairly simple process to determine how many new immigrants would be legally admitted and who we need those immigrants to be.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.

I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.

Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?

The parents of DACA kids are old. They don't largely drive the labor force. They've been as Americanized as their children. And there's no reason to forcibly separate those families. They've ENCOURAGED and watched their kids to become Americans. They did a great job in most cases. They are the least of our worries.

Well thank you and a gold star for the first one to actually discuss that topic.

My problem with the parents is the same as all other of these 'humanitarian' heart breaking type issues. When more than four million people are respecting our laws and patiently waiting to be issued visas through legal channels that would allow them to live and work here, to allow those who thumbed their noses at our laws to jump to the head of the line just seems wrong to me.

I am willing to listen to any persuasive arguments though as to why that would be okay.

Thought my argument was VERY persuasive. As opposed to ripping those families apart. The elderly parents are not gonna affect future demographics or the employment pool. And their kids know no other country and are now de facto functional Americans. You're never gonna wedge those families apart thru deportation. The kids are now professionals, or skilled labor US employees for the most part. In one generation that family went from menial labor in the shadows to fully contributing in skilled positions.

Same with families who delivered US citizen children while in the US illegally. Took way too long to address this. Life happens. Need to accept that our political inaction is largely responsible for these awkward calls to SPLIT UP core families. I can't support doing that after 1/2 a lifetime of legal/political neglect.

Well, setting aside for the moment our very real and not unimportant feelings of compassion for the DACA families, how do you square allowing the DACA family to stay while telling the deserving family that has been waiting for years for legal admission that they will have to continue to wait?

There is no "zero sum" on immigration. At some point you determine what you can absorb due to economic and other considerations. So --- we just enlarged the American family by a bit because of political and leadership ineptitude. THAT realization drives the FUTURE numbers for immigration. I hate using the word quota because it's so unyielding to taking advantage of "good deals".

It's not like if you physically pushed and shoved 4 million broken families back across the border that that would open 4 Million slots for all the waiting. It's not a pie. Doesn't slice like that.

I agree. Only those who can be seamlessly assimilated into American society should be legal immigrants. But most DACA kids who were brought here very young still have young working age parents. Many, likely most, of the DACA kids are still minors. Sending those kids home with their parents not be no bigger deal for the kids than families who move to a different country legally. No bigger deal than when the families moved them here. No bigger deal than Barack Obama's mother moving him to Indonesia for several years.

Believe me I am not as heartless as I may seem here. I have worked with these people, been face to face with them, know them, am fond of a few of them. And I applauded the Congress who offered legislation that would have given permanent status to a 1.8 million of them--a little over a half million have applied for DACA status--however that legislation that also ended chain migration could not garner sufficient votes to pass.

But if we allow our hearts to rule our heads, we may be doing more harm than good. I am almost always ready to compromise on reasonable solutions to address a problem, but we need to agree on what the law should be.

 

[Darkwind]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

I would love to participate, but I think this is the wrong focus for immigration. This would be fine to discuss AFTER we discuss the limits (pure numbers) of immigrants we will permit to enter the US in any given year.

The reason we can no longer keep up with our infrastructure in this country is that we import to many people and their extended families.

I offer this as a reason we should be discussing immigration control.

Note: This discussion was in 2010. The problem hasn't gone away or become better.

We already have immigration laws regulating the number of legal immigrants who will be admitted each year. The problem isn't the number of legal immigrants though that certainly should be part of the discussion. But it seems really silly to me to discuss how many legal immigrants when we have an official 11-12 illegals--more like 20+ by some theories--already here. The issue of who is legal relates more to the lottery system instead of issuing permanent visas to those who merit being here, i.e. No. 5 on the poll list.

In my opinion if all or most of the suggestions in the poll were adopted as law, then it would be a fairly simple process to determine how many new immigrants would be legally admitted and who we need those immigrants to be.

Regardless of the quality of people we chose to allow in, the numbers don't lie.

Under current limits set, by the end of this century, we will not be able to maintain our quality of life and the US will descend into third world status.

This is the most pressing issue of immigration right now. We need to return to replacement level immigration.

 

[Foxfyre]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

I would love to participate, but I think this is the wrong focus for immigration. This would be fine to discuss AFTER we discuss the limits (pure numbers) of immigrants we will permit to enter the US in any given year.

The reason we can no longer keep up with our infrastructure in this country is that we import to many people and their extended families.

I offer this as a reason we should be discussing immigration control.

Note: This discussion was in 2010. The problem hasn't gone away or become better.

We already have immigration laws regulating the number of legal immigrants who will be admitted each year. The problem isn't the number of legal immigrants though that certainly should be part of the discussion. But it seems really silly to me to discuss how many legal immigrants when we have an official 11-12 illegals--more like 20+ by some theories--already here. The issue of who is legal relates more to the lottery system instead of issuing permanent visas to those who merit being here, i.e. No. 5 on the poll list.

In my opinion if all or most of the suggestions in the poll were adopted as law, then it would be a fairly simple process to determine how many new immigrants would be legally admitted and who we need those immigrants to be.

Regardless of the quality of people we chose to allow in, the numbers don't lie.

Under current limits set, by the end of this century, we will not be able to maintain our quality of life and the US will descend into third world status.

This is the most pressing issue of immigration right now. We need to return to replacement level immigration.

I have no quarrel with that. But we cannot replace illegals with legal immigrants as needed replacements unless we send the illegals home or make America so inhospitable to them they will voluntarily leave.

 

[Darkwind]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

I would love to participate, but I think this is the wrong focus for immigration. This would be fine to discuss AFTER we discuss the limits (pure numbers) of immigrants we will permit to enter the US in any given year.

The reason we can no longer keep up with our infrastructure in this country is that we import to many people and their extended families.

I offer this as a reason we should be discussing immigration control.

Note: This discussion was in 2010. The problem hasn't gone away or become better.

We already have immigration laws regulating the number of legal immigrants who will be admitted each year. The problem isn't the number of legal immigrants though that certainly should be part of the discussion. But it seems really silly to me to discuss how many legal immigrants when we have an official 11-12 illegals--more like 20+ by some theories--already here. The issue of who is legal relates more to the lottery system instead of issuing permanent visas to those who merit being here, i.e. No. 5 on the poll list.

In my opinion if all or most of the suggestions in the poll were adopted as law, then it would be a fairly simple process to determine how many new immigrants would be legally admitted and who we need those immigrants to be.

Regardless of the quality of people we chose to allow in, the numbers don't lie.

Under current limits set, by the end of this century, we will not be able to maintain our quality of life and the US will descend into third world status.

This is the most pressing issue of immigration right now. We need to return to replacement level immigration.

I have no quarrel with that. But we cannot replace illegals with legal immigrants as needed replacements unless we send the illegals home or make America so inhospitable to them they will voluntarily leave.

I can live with both or either solutions.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is clear to me on this thread and others I participate in that a comprehensive immigration policy is extremely difficult to accomplish, most especially when most find it difficult to even articulate a rationale for their point of view.

It is especially difficult when we can't separate it from emotional response, partisanship, and politics.

A reasoned, responsible, coherent immigration policy is multi-faceted and cannot be established on a single point of view. It has to be considered in terms of long range impact and considerations of behavior on a macroeconomic scale.

 

[Picaro]

Enforce and conduct prosecutions of employers will go much further to make it less attractive to illegally come here, including jail time for executives, all by itself. We already have enough laws, we just don't demand enforcement of them. So what is the point of passing more of them?

One of the problems is American business owners being able to avoid responsibility for the actions of their employees, via 'limited liability', and 'corporate personhood' scams. 'Shareholders need to be held financially responsible for the criminal behavior of their companies as well.It's their jobs as owners to oversee the companies they own. They are ultimately responsible for its actions, including hiring illegal aliens.

Of course, many who claim to be right wingers and conservatives don't actually believe in such things as personal responsibility, except among those with the least power and means to be so free to decide such things, so we can forget real solutions to a lot of issues right off the bat. Seems they suddenly avoid 'original intent' when it's pointed out our 'Founders' frowned on 'limited liability' as nothing but a license to steal, and regulated it heavily, required a charter from the state and monitored it, and limited its profit margins to boot in return for the privilege. Now any idiot with a couple hundred bucks can buy it, a stupid situation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Enforce and conduct prosecutions of employers will go much further to make it less attractive to illegally come here, including jail time for executives, all by itself. We already have enough laws, we just don't demand enforcement of them. So what is the point of passing more of them?

One of the problems is American business owners being able to avoid responsibility for the actions of their employees, via 'limited liability', and 'corporate personhood' scams. 'Shareholders need to be held financially responsible for the criminal behavior of their companies as well.It's their jobs as owners to oversee the companies they own. They are ultimately responsible for its actions, including hiring illegal aliens.

Of course, many who claim to be right wingers and conservatives don't actually believe in such things as personal responsibility, except among those with the least power and means to be so free to decide such things, so we can forget real solutions to a lot of issues right off the bat. Seems they suddenly avoid 'original intent' when it's pointed out our 'Founders' frowned on 'limited liability' as nothing but a license to steal, and regulated it heavily, required a charter from the state and monitored it, and limited its profit margins to boot in return for the privilege. Now any idiot with a couple hundred bucks can buy it, a stupid situation.

I don't know how old you are Picaro, but I was running a large agency in Kansas when the government put a very strict policy in force to address the much less severe illegal immigration problem at that time. The rule was that all job applicants must provide a current green card or proof of citizenship--birth certificate, naturalization papers, or such plus two other forms of ID proving identity as well as residence such as a driver's license and recent utility bill.

In our business when we often needed to put a qualified applicant to work immediately, it was no time that we were pretty lax in requiring those documents up front. And it was no time that cottage industries providing fake documents were popping up all over the country.

I don't know if that requirement has ever been rescinded, but it was a royal pain for employers and compliance became ever more relaxed until it was pretty much non existent.

I don't have a problem with employer's requiring positive ID from their employees and making it illegal subject to consequences when an employer knowingly hires illegals. I have no problem with employers requiring positive ID when hiring and asking what the applicant's citizenship status is. But to put the responsibility for verification of legal status entirely on the employer is a huge annoyance that wouldn't be necessary if the government does its job to secure the borders and make illegal presence here unprofitable and inadvisable.

 

[Picaro]

Enforce and conduct prosecutions of employers will go much further to make it less attractive to illegally come here, including jail time for executives, all by itself. We already have enough laws, we just don't demand enforcement of them. So what is the point of passing more of them?

One of the problems is American business owners being able to avoid responsibility for the actions of their employees, via 'limited liability', and 'corporate personhood' scams. 'Shareholders need to be held financially responsible for the criminal behavior of their companies as well.It's their jobs as owners to oversee the companies they own. They are ultimately responsible for its actions, including hiring illegal aliens.

Of course, many who claim to be right wingers and conservatives don't actually believe in such things as personal responsibility, except among those with the least power and means to be so free to decide such things, so we can forget real solutions to a lot of issues right off the bat. Seems they suddenly avoid 'original intent' when it's pointed out our 'Founders' frowned on 'limited liability' as nothing but a license to steal, and regulated it heavily, required a charter from the state and monitored it, and limited its profit margins to boot in return for the privilege. Now any idiot with a couple hundred bucks can buy it, a stupid situation.

I don't know how old you are Picaro, but I was running a large agency in Kansas when the government put a very strict policy in force to address the much less severe illegal immigration problem at that time. The rule was that all job applicants must provide a current green card or proof of citizenship--birth certificate, naturalization papers, or such plus two other forms of ID proving identity as well as residence such as a driver's license and recent utility bill.

In our business when we often needed to put a qualified applicant to work immediately, it was no time that we were pretty lax in requiring those documents up front. And it was no time that cottage industries providing fake documents were popping up all over the country.

I don't know if that requirement has ever been rescinded, but it was a royal pain for employers and compliance became ever more relaxed until it was pretty much non existent.

I don't have a problem with employer's requiring positive ID from their employees and making it illegal subject to consequences when an employer knowingly hires illegals. I have no problem with employers requiring positive ID when hiring and asking what the applicant's citizenship status is. But to put the responsibility for verification of legal status entirely on the employer is a huge annoyance that wouldn't be necessary if the government does its job to secure the borders and make illegal presence here unprofitable and inadvisable.

Born in 1953.

My memories are different; I remember the 'crackdown' they put on for a show. They would make obviously white and obviously black Americans present in some cases 5 forms of ID when applying for jobs, but they would still have entire factory floors and warehouse staffed with personnel that didn't speak a word of English. Naturally the legal citizens would never be called back. This goes for skilled workers, not just bus boys and the other lies spread; they take skilled jobs for low pay, driving wages down to nothing.

The goal was to make checking ID's and weeding out criminal illegal aliens unpopular with voters via harassment, that's all it was about; they did next to nothing about 'controlling' companies that hired criminal illegal aliens. They merely had their labor racketeers start up 'temp agencies' and hired through them.

Before the media got tired of covering the scam, there were several stories of American hispanics having to pretend to be illegal aliens in order to get jobs, and have to pay to get 'driven' to job sites in the agencies' vans, of course , along with 'fees' for other services' as well. When these 'temp agencies' got caught, they simply disappeared and opened up under different names. Of course the employers could claim they had nothing to do with it all, no matter how many times their plants got raided.

There has never been any serious attempts to prosecute major employer violators, and there still isn't under Trump, so far. Many cities even use tax dollars to subsidize 'safe areas' for temp day workers to congregate now.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in.

The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries

Most countries have some version of these programs.

Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.

On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.

I live in Maryland and they can’t find anyone to pick crabs

The price of crab meat will skyrocket.

Seems they forgot to get the Visa's for the migrant workers.

Should be plenty of crabs this year.

The price for live crabs may go down.

If not, I'll be back to crabbing.

You can easily catch a bushel by 10 AM.

 

[Foxfyre]

Enforce and conduct prosecutions of employers will go much further to make it less attractive to illegally come here, including jail time for executives, all by itself. We already have enough laws, we just don't demand enforcement of them. So what is the point of passing more of them?

One of the problems is American business owners being able to avoid responsibility for the actions of their employees, via 'limited liability', and 'corporate personhood' scams. 'Shareholders need to be held financially responsible for the criminal behavior of their companies as well.It's their jobs as owners to oversee the companies they own. They are ultimately responsible for its actions, including hiring illegal aliens.

Of course, many who claim to be right wingers and conservatives don't actually believe in such things as personal responsibility, except among those with the least power and means to be so free to decide such things, so we can forget real solutions to a lot of issues right off the bat. Seems they suddenly avoid 'original intent' when it's pointed out our 'Founders' frowned on 'limited liability' as nothing but a license to steal, and regulated it heavily, required a charter from the state and monitored it, and limited its profit margins to boot in return for the privilege. Now any idiot with a couple hundred bucks can buy it, a stupid situation.

I don't know how old you are Picaro, but I was running a large agency in Kansas when the government put a very strict policy in force to address the much less severe illegal immigration problem at that time. The rule was that all job applicants must provide a current green card or proof of citizenship--birth certificate, naturalization papers, or such plus two other forms of ID proving identity as well as residence such as a driver's license and recent utility bill.

In our business when we often needed to put a qualified applicant to work immediately, it was no time that we were pretty lax in requiring those documents up front. And it was no time that cottage industries providing fake documents were popping up all over the country.

I don't know if that requirement has ever been rescinded, but it was a royal pain for employers and compliance became ever more relaxed until it was pretty much non existent.

I don't have a problem with employer's requiring positive ID from their employees and making it illegal subject to consequences when an employer knowingly hires illegals. I have no problem with employers requiring positive ID when hiring and asking what the applicant's citizenship status is. But to put the responsibility for verification of legal status entirely on the employer is a huge annoyance that wouldn't be necessary if the government does its job to secure the borders and make illegal presence here unprofitable and inadvisable.

Born in 1953.

My memories are different; I remember the 'crackdown' they put on for a show. They would make obviously white and obviously black Americans present in some cases 5 forms of ID when applying for jobs, but they would still have entire factory floors and warehouse staffed with personnel that didn't speak a word of English. Naturally the legal citizens would never be called back. This goes for skilled workers, not just bus boys and the other lies spread; they take skilled jobs for low pay, driving wages down to nothing.

The goal was to make checking ID's and weeding out criminal illegal aliens unpopular with voters via harassment, that's all it was about; they did next to nothing about 'controlling' companies that hired criminal illegal aliens. They merely had their labor racketeers start up 'temp agencies' and hired through them.

Before the media got tired of covering the scam, there were several stories of American hispanics having to pretend to be illegal aliens in order to get jobs, and have to pay to get 'driven' to job sites in the agencies' vans, of course , along with 'fees' for other services' as well. When these 'temp agencies' got caught, they simply disappeared and opened up under different names. Of course the employers could claim they had nothing to do with it all, no matter how many times their plants got raided.

There has never been any serious attempts to prosecute major employer violators, and there still isn't under Trump, so far. Many cities even use tax dollars to subsidize 'safe areas' for temp day workers to congregate now.

So I hope you checked at least the #1 through #8 poll options. If comprehensive immigration reform is passed, we now have a President who I am pretty sure will see that it is enforced.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Request: please keep discussion reasonably civil. And let's make refuge issues a separate discussion, please, and focus only on immigration in this one.

The following list is intended as a PROPOSED immigration policy, not what the law currently is or what any court rulings have been so far. What, if anything, can you agree with and support as immigration policy? Why or why not?

1. All immigrants must enter America legally. No exceptions. Anybody caught entering the USA illegally will be deported and forever banned from legal entry.

2. A border wall will be built to help keep immigration legal. No suggestion is made here of definition of 'wall' or what sort of wall, but we must be able to protect our borders.

3. DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members. However harsh this sounds, the kids have a choice to stay by themselves or go home with their parents or other family.

4. DACA kids leaving with family will not have automatic right of return. They can't have it both ways.

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in. Those admitted should be prepared to support themselves, learn English, and want to be Americans so that they enrich and improve us rather than be a further drain on finite resources.

6. Chain migration re immigrants will be illegal. It is unreasonable for immigrants to be able to import whatever family members they choose and therefore one new immigrant equals sometimes dozens of people.

7. Children of citizen parents will be the only automatic citizens. This one will require a constitutional amendment, but it would stop the anchor baby syndrome in which the mother knows if she can give birth to a U.S. citizen, she will be allowed to stay.

8. Immediate humanitarian aid; otherwise no benefits for illegals. We must stop giving jobs, the equivalent of welfare benefits, free educations, free healthcare, et al to those who are here illegally.

9. There will be a means of issuing short term work visas. This has long been an American tradition in which border states can benefit from Mexican et al labor and the laborers can enjoy the extra money they can legally earn. But when the job is complete, the workers go home.

10. Overstay a visa or come here illegally and you can be forever banned from the USA. There might be a bit of wiggle room if the overstay was inadvertent, i,e, somebody was in the hospital. But as a rule, this will provide a deterrent to those who now are apprehended and deported again and again and again.

The poll includes an option to change your selections should you change your mind.

Thoughts?

An open borders group that has benefitted from U.S. taxpayer dollars and is funded by leftwing billionaire George Soros launched a smartphone application to help illegal immigrants avoid federal authorities. The app, Notifica (Notify), is described in a Laredo, Texas news article as a tool to protect immigrants living in the U.S. illegally by utilizing high tech and online social communications. With the click of a button, illegal aliens can alert family, friends and attorneys of encounters with federal authorities. “Immigration agents knocking at the door?” the news story asks. “Now, there’s an app for that, too.”

The group behind the app is called United We Dream, which describes itself as the country’s largest immigrant youth-led community. The nonprofit has more than 400,000 members nationwide and claims to “embrace the common struggle of all people of color and stand up against racism, colonialism, colorism, and xenophobia.” Among its key projects is winning protections and rights for illegal immigrants, defending against deportation, obtaining education for illegal immigrants and acquiring “justice and liberation” for undocumented LGBT “immigrants and allies.” Illegal aliens encounter lots of discrimination, which creates a lot of fear, according to United We Dream. “We empower people to develop their leadership, their organizing skills, and to develop our own campaigns to fight for justice and dignity for immigrants and all people,” United We Dream states on its website, adding that this is achieved through immigrant youth-led campaigns at the local, state, and federal level.

United We Dream started as a project of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. Between 2008 and 2010, NILC received $206,453 in U.S. government grants, the records show. The project funded was for “immigration-related employment discrimination public education.” Headquartered in Los Angeles, NILC was established in 1979 and is dedicated to “defending and advancing the rights of immigrants with low income.” The organization, which also has offices in Washington D.C. and Berkeley, California claims to have played a leadership role in spearheading Barack Obama’s amnesty program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which has shielded hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from deportation. “Ultimately, NILC’s goals are centered on promoting the full integration of all immigrants into U.S. society,” according to its website.

Both the NILC and its offshoot, United We Dream, get big bucks from Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF). In fact, both nonprofits list OSF as a key financial backer. In the United States Soros groups have pushed a radical agenda that includes promoting an open border with Mexico and fighting immigration enforcement efforts, fomenting racial disharmony by funding anti-capitalist black separationist organizations, financing the Black Lives Matter movement and other groups involved in the Ferguson Missouri riots, weakening the integrity of the nation’s electoral systems, opposing U.S. counterterrorism efforts and eroding 2nd Amendment protections. OSF has also funded a liberal think-tank headed by former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and the scandal-ridden activist group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), so corrupt that Congress banned it from receiving federal funding.

Incredibly, the U.S. government uses taxpayer dollars to support Soros’ radical globalist agenda abroad. As part of an ongoing investigation, Judicial Watch has exposed several collaborative efforts between Uncle Sam and Soros in other countries. Just last week Judicial Watch published a special investigative report that exposes in detail the connection between U.S.-funded entities and Soros’ OSF to further the Hungarian philanthropist’s efforts in Guatemala. The goal is to advance a radical globalist agenda through “lawfare” and political subversion, the report shows. Much like in the United States, OSF programs in Guatemala include funding liberal media outlets, supporting global politicians, advocating for open borders, fomenting public discord and influencing academic institutions.

Last year Judicial Watch exposed a joint effort between the U.S. government and Soros to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia. Records obtained by Judicial Watch in that investigation show that the U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia worked behind the scenes with OSF to funnel large sums of American dollars for the cause, constituting an interference of the U.S. Ambassador in domestic political affairs in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The cash—about $5 million.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Repealing the born here automatic citizenship rule would take a constitutional amendment which won't be ratified. Otherwise at least in the ballpark.

If they add Term Limits it might pass. They have to have a Constitution Convention to pass it by the states.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repealing the born here automatic citizenship rule would take a constitutional amendment which won't be ratified. Otherwise at least in the ballpark.

If they add Term Limits it might pass. They have to have a Constitution Convention to pass it by the states.

If we can get legislation on the books to make chain migration illegal, then we would probably also have the votes in Congress to pass an amendment granting automatic citizenship only to those with citizen parent or parents. And I am pretty sure the states would ratify it with no problem.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

5. New immigrants will be admitted by merit and not by lottery. We are the only developed country in the world that uses a lottery system to determine who gets in.

The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries

Most countries have some version of these programs.

Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.

On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.

Number 9 on the poll and the O.P. should remedy the work shortage problem without straining our finite social services.

As for merit, the Canadians have a pretty good list of what would constitute merit. I'm sure we could come up with something as comprehensive:

Immigrate to Canada - Canada.ca

I have no problem with saying that immigrants- other than refugees- should not receive social services- and deporting them if they ask for them.

But I don't see why we should put more emphasis on allowing immigrants into the United States that more directly compete with Americans for high paying jobs- than immigrants who take jobs that Americans do not want.

low wage jobs usually get subsidized at public expense.

If millions of people are not here illegally working at substandard wages--many being paid below the table--I'm pretty sure there will be fewer low wage jobs. But low wage jobs are important for entry level workers to develop work ethic, acquire skills, get references, and prepare themselves for better jobs by which they can support themselves.

There should certainly be a provision in the immigration law making it illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegals. That would be implied in a way in No. 8 on the poll but I couldn't add a No. 11 for that specific provision.

Walking Tall by Walking All Over People

Low wages mean high profits for the parasite owners. There is no economic law determining wages. The "free market" is a scam for those who dominate it. They even claim that their lopsided power in it just proves that they are that much better than the employees, who actually create the plutocrats' capital because they're brainwashed into thinking they deserve to be losers in this Con game.

 

[Foxfyre]

The United States uses multiple systems to decide in new immigrants:
a) Employment based- which is what you are speaking of
b) Family sponsored immigration- which you refer to later
c) Refugees
d) Diversity lottery- this is restricted to certain countries

Most countries have some version of these programs.

Merit is a double edged sword- while I agree that we should welcome highly qualified and trained individuals- these are the most likely to compete directly with Americans for the best paying jobs.

On the other side- American employers are having a difficult time finding workers for some of the most basic industries- such as slaughter houses and farms- where immigrants are welcome employees and rarely are competing with American workers.

Number 9 on the poll and the O.P. should remedy the work shortage problem without straining our finite social services.

As for merit, the Canadians have a pretty good list of what would constitute merit. I'm sure we could come up with something as comprehensive:

Immigrate to Canada - Canada.ca

I have no problem with saying that immigrants- other than refugees- should not receive social services- and deporting them if they ask for them.

But I don't see why we should put more emphasis on allowing immigrants into the United States that more directly compete with Americans for high paying jobs- than immigrants who take jobs that Americans do not want.

low wage jobs usually get subsidized at public expense.

If millions of people are not here illegally working at substandard wages--many being paid below the table--I'm pretty sure there will be fewer low wage jobs. But low wage jobs are important for entry level workers to develop work ethic, acquire skills, get references, and prepare themselves for better jobs by which they can support themselves.

There should certainly be a provision in the immigration law making it illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegals. That would be implied in a way in No. 8 on the poll but I couldn't add a No. 11 for that specific provision.

Walking Tall by Walking All Over People

Low wages mean high profits for the parasite owners. There is no economic law determining wages. The "free market" is a scam for those who dominate it. They even claim that their lopsided power in it just proves that they are that much better than the employees, who actually create the plutocrats' capital because they're brainwashed into thinking they deserve to be losers in this Con game.

Again please take discussions of wages and such to an appropriate thread for that discussion. This thread is related to what the law should be re illegal immigrants. That illegal immigrants lower wages for everybody is a valid argument that has considerable credibility and that is one of many good reasons for the law to make illegal immigration difficult and unprofitable.

But what should that law be? My recommendation are Numbers #1 through #10 on the poll options.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is interesting to me that the lowest number of votes so far is for No. 3: DACA kids can stay legally but not their illegal family members.

I wish some of you who didn't vote for that one but did vote for some or all the others would provide your rationale for a 'no vote' on that one.

Is it that you think the DACA kids should be able to bring or keep their currently illegal families here? Or that the DACA kids should not be allowed to stay period?

Millennials Will Be a Piñata

The DACA caca have been brought up by their parents with contempt for our laws and for the American people. Letting them stay is a threat to the next generation of Americans.