CDZ Discussion Question About Immigration

[Correll]

Whether or not they have an absolute right, they live here and perform essential economic functions.

Collecting welfare is not nearly as essential as you make it out to be .

To maintain the present arbitrary restrictions, divides employers into those who obey the laws, and those who exploit illegal labor--leaving one at a disadvantage, and the other prone to uncertainties.

Is it legal to hire illegals?

If not, then why would employers do it?

Never mind, it must be the lettuce fairy that picks it so cheap.

The few jobs are that ACTUALLY so shitty that Americans won't do them, can be solved by a guest worker program with any shitty Third World Country and we could actually send them home when the work is done.

Lettuce is not a reason to give up our National Sovereignty.

 

[Staidhup]

Federal Immigration laws must be adhered to and enforced, period, end of sentence. The current issue of undocumented illegal aliens residing in the US requires attention.

One rather simple solution would be to deport those entering the US illegally during the past three years when apprehended.

Those that are currently employed for the past 36 months, demonstrated proof of paying monthly rent, utilities, auto insurance bills, not violated civil or federal law, excluding federal immigration law, could be granted a one time opportunity to plead guilty in Federal Court, agree to pay a fine of between $5,000-$10,000 per family member, within a 60 month time period, inform and report employment status, current residence status, prof of filing federal and state taxes, to the court or immigration compliance authorities.

Congress could then grant the authority to issue a nonresident identification card. At the successful conclusion of paying the fine, satisfaction in compliance to the terms of the probation period, granted a permanent residency card with the stipulation that failure to pay taxes or violation of federal, state law, would trigger immediate deportation until such time they become naturalized American citizens.

Such a law would reduce the expense and burden of rounding up illegal's, at the same time fund the building and maintenance of a secure boarder fence.

Those violating visitor visa stays should be deported and given the opportunity to reapply for entry through normal immigration channels.

The expense and numerous issues resulting from rounding up, incarcerating, and deporting illegals is prohibitive and counter productive.

The issue of anchor babies is simple, a child born in the US to illegal undocumented aliens would follow the nationality of their parents. The Constitution requires Supreme Court interpretation and clarification as to intent regarding the status of children born in the US to illegal immigrants that have not denounced their citizenship to their former country. As for children born within the aforementioned " quasi amnesty program" they would be American Citizens, provided their parents upheld the terms of probation, and denounced their citizenship and allegiance to the country they originated from.

 

[FA_Q2]

Federal Immigration laws must be adhered to and enforced, period, end of sentence. The current issue of undocumented illegal aliens residing in the US requires attention.

One rather simple solution would be to deport those entering the US illegally during the past three years when apprehended.

Those that are currently employed for the past 36 months, demonstrated proof of paying monthly rent, utilities, auto insurance bills, not violated civil or federal law, excluding federal immigration law, could be granted a one time opportunity to plead guilty in Federal Court, agree to pay a fine of between $5,000-$10,000 per family member, within a 60 month time period, inform and report employment status, current residence status, prof of filing federal and state taxes, to the court or immigration compliance authorities.

Congress could then grant the authority to issue a nonresident identification card. At the successful conclusion of paying the fine, satisfaction in compliance to the terms of the probation period, granted a permanent residency card with the stipulation that failure to pay taxes or violation of federal, state law, would trigger immediate deportation until such time they become naturalized American citizens.

Such a law would reduce the expense and burden of rounding up illegal's, at the same time fund the building and maintenance of a secure boarder fence.

Those violating visitor visa stays should be deported and given the opportunity to reapply for entry through normal immigration channels.

The expense and numerous issues resulting from rounding up, incarcerating, and deporting illegals is prohibitive and counter productive.

The issue of anchor babies is simple, a child born in the US to illegal undocumented aliens would follow the nationality of their parents. The Constitution requires Supreme Court interpretation and clarification as to intent regarding the status of children born in the US to illegal immigrants that have not denounced their citizenship to their former country. As for children born within the aforementioned " quasi amnesty program" they would be American Citizens, provided their parents upheld the terms of probation, and denounced their citizenship and allegiance to the country they originated from.

I don't see the value in requiring a massive fine to the most poor. Illegal immigrants are not awash in extra funds nor are they likely to be capable of paying such a fine. Putting a system in place to allow productive members of society to continue to be productive members is good - taking everything they have in the name of upholding the 'law' is not.

 

[320 Years of History]

The few jobs are that ACTUALLY so shitty that Americans won't do them, can be solved by a guest worker program with any shitty Third World Country and we could actually send them home when the work is done.

Lettuce is not a reason to give up our National Sovereignty.

I'll try to keep in mind that the job must be "that crappy" the next time one of my projects is faced with finding a developer and I have to process an H1 visa for a person from somewhere else, likely India, to fill the position, even though the firm has advertised domestically for the position -- one that'll pay at least $120K/year, come with excellent benefits including firm paid health insurance, three weeks of vacation time to start, and has oodles of career growth potential -- and received no suitably qualified U.S. citizen applicants.

 

[JoeMoma]

The few jobs are that ACTUALLY so shitty that Americans won't do them, can be solved by a guest worker program with any shitty Third World Country and we could actually send them home when the work is done.

Lettuce is not a reason to give up our National Sovereignty.

I'll try to keep in mind that the job must be "that crappy" the next time one of my projects is faced with finding a developer and I have to process an H1 visa for a person from somewhere else, likely India, to fill the position, even though the firm has advertised domestically for the position -- one that'll pay at least $120K/year, come with excellent benefits including firm paid health insurance, three weeks of vacation time to start, and has oodles of career growth potential -- and received no suitably qualified U.S. citizen applicants.

Isn't processing the visa in effect getting permission for your person to come here? It would be a problem your person comes over without following the proper procedure.

 

[Correll]

The few jobs are that ACTUALLY so shitty that Americans won't do them, can be solved by a guest worker program with any shitty Third World Country and we could actually send them home when the work is done.

Lettuce is not a reason to give up our National Sovereignty.

I'll try to keep in mind that the job must be "that crappy" the next time one of my projects is faced with finding a developer and I have to process an H1 visa for a person from somewhere else, likely India, to fill the position, even though the firm has advertised domestically for the position -- one that'll pay at least $120K/year, come with excellent benefits including firm paid health insurance, three weeks of vacation time to start, and has oodles of career growth potential -- and received no suitably qualified U.S. citizen applicants.

While my comment was in a response to a post about Lettuce pickers, I am happy to discuss your claim that we have a shortage of STEM workers.

As you made the claim, please post a supporting link.

 

[320 Years of History]

The few jobs are that ACTUALLY so shitty that Americans won't do them, can be solved by a guest worker program with any shitty Third World Country and we could actually send them home when the work is done.

Lettuce is not a reason to give up our National Sovereignty.

I'll try to keep in mind that the job must be "that crappy" the next time one of my projects is faced with finding a developer and I have to process an H1 visa for a person from somewhere else, likely India, to fill the position, even though the firm has advertised domestically for the position -- one that'll pay at least $120K/year, come with excellent benefits including firm paid health insurance, three weeks of vacation time to start, and has oodles of career growth potential -- and received no suitably qualified U.S. citizen applicants.

Isn't processing the visa in effect getting permission for your person to come here? It would be a problem your person comes over without following the proper procedure.

Processing the visa makes the person's arrival legit, yes. Indeed, my firm will not knowingly hire an illegal immigrant to fill any position.

I posted the remark as a comment about Correll's statement "few jobs are that..shitty that Americans won't do them." My experience has been that there exist jobs that aren't crappy at all and that we can't find Americans to do them. Thus the "crappiness" or "goodness" of a job has little to nothing to do with whether it needs to be filled with a non-citizen/resident. I'm not advocating for illegal immigrants or hiring illegal immigrants. I'm saying that there is a clear need for us to admit immigrants into the country, not only just to be here as vacationers, but also to come here and work. Were immigrants not able to come to the U.S., I would have had nobody to fill the positions I had to fill in order to perform the work on engagements that, in total, were/are literally worth hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to my firm.

 

[320 Years of History]

The few jobs are that ACTUALLY so shitty that Americans won't do them, can be solved by a guest worker program with any shitty Third World Country and we could actually send them home when the work is done.

Lettuce is not a reason to give up our National Sovereignty.

I'll try to keep in mind that the job must be "that crappy" the next time one of my projects is faced with finding a developer and I have to process an H1 visa for a person from somewhere else, likely India, to fill the position, even though the firm has advertised domestically for the position -- one that'll pay at least $120K/year, come with excellent benefits including firm paid health insurance, three weeks of vacation time to start, and has oodles of career growth potential -- and received no suitably qualified U.S. citizen applicants.

While my comment was in a response to a post about Lettuce pickers, I am happy to discuss your claim that we have a shortage of STEM workers.

As you made the claim, please post a supporting link.

First, I'm not claiming there is a shortage of STEM workers in general. I'm saying that I and others in my firm have sought to obtain U.S. citizen/resident developers and have been unsuccessful in doing so, and as a result, we have had to turn to foreign workers to fill the positions. I'm also saying that doing so has been critical to our ability to deliver on multiple engagements. I'm not saying that we do so for every developer position, only that when we must do so, we do so.

• STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes : Monthly Labor Review: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  
• There Is In Fact A Tech-Talent Shortage And There Always Will Be
  
• Short on STEM Talent
• Why Companies Aren't Getting the Employees They Need
  
• Tech Firms Using Foreign Workers to Outsource Jobs?

The links above notwithstanding, the best evidence I have is the awareness that we have had to hire folks from abroad to perform work on projects both in the U.S. and overseas.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

So an illegal comes in, buys a social security card and a green card from on of a million "immigration lawyers" who are on every street in the Southwest. The employer does the I-9 as required, along with e-verify.

But you say the employer should go to jail?

You voted for Obama, dinja?

That is not happening in the majority of the cases, but then you already knew that and are just playing dumb. You are a Trumptard supporter aren't you?

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

Do they have a "right"? No. However, even given that answer it doesn't even scratch the surface about what should be done to prevent it. Building a wall is not the answer. Punishing those that hire illegals with jail time and company crushing fines would help stop the "demand".

Even Trump couldn't answer for sure if he didn't have illegals working for him.

The Debate at this time isn't HOW TO enforce the democratically enacted Will of the People,

BUT rather IF the People have a Right to determine their national policy though democracy

AND if we as a nation have the ability to enforce the Will of the People.

We are not a democracy run by mob rule. The Will of the People is not absolute.

Democratic Republic, but the issue of it being the law/will of the people is still the same. That being said, some rights of individuals should trump the will of the people, but foreigners coming into our country without permission/regulation is not one of them.

That wasn't the question that was asked of me specifically. The question was should the will of the people be upheld without ANY caveat. I have even answered in a previous post in regards to immigration yes, I do believe that is the case that the people should decide.

 

[jwoodie]

I don't see the value in requiring a massive fine to the most poor. Illegal immigrants are not awash in extra funds nor are they likely to be capable of paying such a fine. Putting a system in place to allow productive members of society to continue to be productive members is good - taking everything they have in the name of upholding the 'law' is not.

That is why I suggested proof of self-support, for 10 years, through federal income tax filings. The "fine" would consist of tax payments without eligibility for corresponding benefits. If they can't show a legal source of income, back they go.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Wow, what a strange discussion. Then again, how could it not be, when it is framed by such a vague OP?

There is no such thing as an unconditional right. Conditional rights are granted by enlightened power. Do US citizens have the right to travel anywhere they wish? Conditionally, yes. If Iran says, "C'mon in!", you can go. They can also deny you the right to leave. The same applies to France.

Countries accord these rights in reciprocal arrangements with other countries. They do so cause it's good for business, it's good for the arts, it's good for politics, it's good for l'amour, it's good for sports, it's good for cuisine, it's good for mutual defense, hell, it's just gooood.

What that worm Trump suggested is disgusting. It's like a six year old trying to take apart his daddy's watch to figure out "what's going on". It's a reformation of the rules of civilization. A step backwards. A literal middle-ages response to barbarians. Close the borders! Build moats! The Turks are at the gates!

 

[jwoodie]

Wow, what a strange discussion. Then again, how could it not be, when it is framed by such a vague OP?

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

What, exactly, is vague to you?

 

[320 Years of History]

Wow, what a strange discussion. Then again, how could it not be, when it is framed by such a vague OP?

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

What, exactly, is vague to you?

Well I have to say that there is no such thing as a vague question when it's one for which the inquirer expects an answer. A question just is what it is; one either answers it directly and to the best of one's ability, or one does not.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Elvis Obama]

Wow, what a strange discussion. Then again, how could it not be, when it is framed by such a vague OP?

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

What, exactly, is vague to you?

Well I have to say that there is no such thing as a vague question when it's one for which the inquirer expects an answer. A question just is what it is; one either answers it directly and to the best of one's ability, or one does not.

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

 

[jwoodie]

Wow, what a strange discussion. Then again, how could it not be, when it is framed by such a vague OP?

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

What, exactly, is vague to you?

Well I have to say that there is no such thing as a vague question when it's one for which the inquirer expects an answer. A question just is what it is; one either answers it directly and to the best of one's ability, or one does not.

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

You apparently consider yes/no questions to be "vague." I find that refusal to answer them indicates a lack of confidence in one's position.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

I don't think the question is vague. You are correct, the world does not revolve around the U.S.

Given the question as it was asked, it's clear that the travelers involved seek to move between nation states. While the traveler is in their home nation, the U.S. cannot grant them any specific rights under its laws because U.S. laws don't apply outside the U.S. The same is so with regard to the other nation. Thus we must, if we are to determine whether the traveler has any inherent right to go from one place to another, must look to and for rights that exist without regard to political boundaries. In other words, do, by their very nature, political boundaries impinge upon any inalienable rights one might have merely be being an Earthling?

Some might say that rights of all sorts exist only within the construct of sovereignty and the corresponding political boundaries it necessitates. Others would say that regardless of what nation one belongs to, there are some rights that all men have and that no nation has the right to deny. Others may fall somewhere between those two positions. Regardless of where one falls on the spectrum, upon determining one's view of what rights are "state given" and which are "given by mere existence," one should be able to answer the question posed.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

I don't think the question is vague. You are correct, the world does not revolve around the U.S.

Given the question as it was asked, it's clear that the travelers involved seek to move between nation states. While the traveler is in their home nation, the U.S. cannot grant them any specific rights under its laws because U.S. laws don't apply outside the U.S. The same is so with regard to the other nation. Thus we must, if we are to determine whether the traveler has any inherent right to go from one place to another, must look to and for rights that exist without regard to political boundaries. In other words, do, by their very nature, political boundaries impinge upon any inalienable rights one might have merely be being an Earthling?

Some might say that rights of all sorts exist only within the construct of sovereignty and the corresponding political boundaries it necessitates. Others would say that regardless of what nation one belongs to, there are some rights that all men have and that no nation has the right to deny. Others may fall somewhere between those two positions. Regardless of where one falls on the spectrum, upon determining one's view of what rights are "state given" and which are "given by mere existence," one should be able to answer the question posed.

I appreciate your point, but I don't think it's responsive to the original, extremely vague and dishonest question.

What am I to believe, that this is not a thread about Donald Trump? It is. Had Trump not said what he said, this thread would not exist. You chose to circumvent the whole mess and address the question in the broadest possible philosophical sense. All very interesting, and in keeping with the real purpose of this sub-forum, which is clean debate, but this thread is not designed to facilitate debate. It's a literal "gotcha" question. If you say yes, non-citizens do have the right to travel to the US, then you are wrong. If you say no, you are tacitly agreeing with Mr. Trump.

What Trump said was beyond stupid, it was dangerous and disgusting. I have no problem with debating any issue honestly. I will not participate in a discussion which seeks to legitimize the paranoia that Trump exploits without calling it out for what it is.

The notion of abandoning international norms to assuage the paranoia of the ignorant is pretty sad. The rational response to terrorism is to not be terrorized.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Wow, what a strange discussion. Then again, how could it not be, when it is framed by such a vague OP?

Do non-U.S. citizens have a right to enter the U.S.?

I say no.

Trump says no.

What do you say?

What, exactly, is vague to you?

Well I have to say that there is no such thing as a vague question when it's one for which the inquirer expects an answer. A question just is what it is; one either answers it directly and to the best of one's ability, or one does not.

Hmmmn, no, there are all kinds of questions, and some are honest and well thought out, others are flawed to a lesser or greater degree. What we have here is veiled attempt to legitimize Trump's "foreign policy" suggestion that we should have a religious test for the admission of non-citizens into the US.

What's vague, specifically, is stating this as "do foreigners have the right to enter the US?". It's like Galileo talking to the Inquisition about the Copernican system. The world does not revolve around the US.

What would not be vague is discussing the basis for the reciprocal arrangements countries make for allowing travel between them. Discussing the value of those international arrangements. Discussing the costs of abandoning those arrangements.

Is this really a discussion of natural rights versus statutory rights as the basis for international travel, or is it a discussion of fear and loathing? I don't care for the latter. Simplistic, isolationist, anti-globalization blather.

You apparently consider yes/no questions to be "vague." I find that refusal to answer them indicates a lack of confidence in one's position.

My position is that you are asking a dishonest question. That you are attempting to legitimize Mr. Trump's amoral pandering to paranoid bigots.

Yes, I consider yes/no questions to be vague when they are asked about a subject too complex to be answered so simplistically.