Immigration thread (1 Viewer)

[Zombiewoof]

In keeping with the site's desire to have more conversation based on concepts, ideas and principles, I will be posting a couple of threads in hopes of generating discussion on topics that are relevant no matter who is in office or the news cycle at any point in time.

What are your guiding principles related to immigration? What in your opinion would be the most reasonable plan to reduce illegal immigration? Should legal immigration be limited to those who can assume roles in US society that are in short supply? What steps are necessary for elected representatives to be able to find compromise on these issues?

 

[Eeyore]

ICE Agents Share Feelings on Being Called Nazis, Racist in New Netflix Show

ICE agents share their feelings on what it's like to be seen as "the bad guys" in a new Netflix series, "Immigration Nation."

www.newsweek.com

Tone deaf or ignorant?

 

[DaveXA]

Wasn't sure where to put this but I just got a push notification that SCOTUS will hear the case related to undocumented immigrants and whether they should be counted in the Census. I'm not sure how I feel about it and haven't given it a great deal of thought. I'm curious what the points of the case will be. Should be interesting.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Wasn't sure where to put this but I just got a push notification that SCOTUS will hear the case related to undocumented immigrants and whether they should be counted in the Census. I'm not sure how I feel about it and haven't given it a great deal of thought. I'm curious what the points of the case will be. Should be interesting.

This is where you will see the so called "originalists" show their hypocritical, disingenuous, true colors by arguing and voting against counting undocumented immigrants.

I hope I'm wrong and I'll gladly admit I was wrong if they don't.

 

[DaveXA]

This is where you will see the so called "originalists" show their hypocritical, disingenuous, true colors by arguing and voting against counting undocumented immigrants.

I hope I'm wrong and I'll gladly admit I was wrong if they don't.

Well, I'm wondering, is it a literal headcount of everyone in the country, or a counting of everyone who is a legal resident? Are undocumented immigrants considered legal residents or should they be counted because they're actually present?

Fwiw, I'm wondering whether admitting you're an undocumented immigrant could be problematic. I imagine I wouldn't want to be reporting for fear of deportation or something.

I'm just thinking out loud on this.

 

[MT15]

The way I understand it, the census counts all persons. There is no mention of legal status at all. I could be wrong since I am going from memory, but I believe it has traditionally counted everyone.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Well, I'm wondering, is it a literal headcount of everyone in the country, or a counting of everyone who is a legal resident? Are undocumented immigrants considered legal residents or should they be counted because they're actually present?

Fwiw, I'm wondering whether admitting you're an undocumented immigrant could be problematic. I imagine I wouldn't want to be reporting for fear of deportation or something.

I'm just thinking out loud on this.

As far as I know, every census that has ever been taken has counted everyone without ever asking anyone anything about their citizenship status or voting status.

It's always meant to be a count of people reducing slaves to a 3/5 count per person and excluding Indians who they didn't want represented at all, not just eligible voters or citizens. They even counted indentured servants.

Here's the full text:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

 

[DaveXA]

As far as I know, every census that has ever been taken has counted everyone without ever asking anyone anything about their citizenship status or voting status.

It's always meant to be a count of people reducing slaves to a 3/5 count per person and excluding Indians who they didn't want represented at all, not just eligible voters or citizens. They even counted indentured servants.

Here's the full text:

Interesting. Looks like they should be counting everyone then. At least until Congress changes the law.

 

[MT15]

Originally, the census is in the constitution, so I’m not sure how much they can alter how it is done. We need a legal opinion on this.

 

[DaveXA]

Originally, the census is in the constitution, so I’m not sure how much they can alter how it is done. We need a legal opinion on this.

Well, I'm assuming they count Indians and slaves are no longer applicable, so I dunno. I assume any altering of the law would require an amendment.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Originally, the census is in the constitution, so I’m not sure how much they can alter how it is done. We need a legal opinion on this.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. The argument usually comes down to the interpretation of "the whole Number of free Persons." Some argue that they meant only citizens when they wrote "persons." Others point out that in other places in the Constituion they use the specific language of "citizens" when specifically referring to citizens, which indicates in this clause that they meant all persons except those who were excluded. If Indians were not considered citizens, then expressly excluding Indians would also support the interpretation that they meant all persons, not just citizens.

Well, I'm assuming they count Indians and slaves are no longer applicable, so I dunno. I assume any altering of the law would require an amendment.

I don't know that they count native Americans who live on sovereign land/reservations.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. The argument usually comes down to the interpretation of "the whole Number of free Persons." Some argue that they meant only citizens when they wrote "persons." Others point out that in other places in the Constituion they use the specific language of "citizens" when specifically referring to citizens, which indicates in this clause that they meant all persons except those who were excluded. If Indians were not considered citizens, then expressly excluding Indians would also support the interpretation that they meant all persons, not just citizens.
I don't know that they count native Americans who live on sovereign land/reservations.

Apparently, they are being counted and have been counted previously. Just from a cursory look, is seems that they're frequently undercounted, which probably isn't all that surprising.

I am wondering if the SC will give us a bit more clarity on whether undocumented residents can or should be counted.

 

[Eeyore]

Asking for an extra $2 billion for next year. We have more brown babies to separate from their parents.

Trump's budget proposal includes "wildly large" request for ICE funding

The budget proposal includes funds for 60,000 detention beds and 4,600 new ICE personnel.

www.axios.com

 

[Goatman saint]

This honestly is an issue that I do care a whole lot about. First step is to provide a path to citizenship for DACA students. They are educated, professionals and cannot keep DACA status if they have a criminal history. To me, this is an obvious subset we must keep.
Second, I doubt any of the people on here have experienced anything like what some of these people have gone through. There is a child in the town I work with who his parents paid a coyote to bring him to the US. He was literally dropped off with no family, nothing just let go in the US. He’s 10. How desperate does a parent have to be to do this? We have politicians and armchair immigration experts making directions when they have never even stopped and learned the stories and the lives. They are people.
I’m not sure the answer, I’d have to get ahold of my friend and really pick her brain on this as this is what she has lived.

 

[Ayo]

I had a number of students when I taught in Houston who had similar stories and ties to Mexico and Central America. It was, at times, horrific. And the sacrifice that families go through for their children is something I certainly do not believe most Americans understand when they spout their ignorance and xenophobia.

And yet, for those of them who are parents, I would be willing to bet they'd do the same for their kids.

Hell yea I would.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Establish a federal jobs guarantee and/or UBI - ancillary benefit is it takes the ‘they took our jerbs’ arrow out of the rhetorical quiver
Then establish a strong guest/seasonal workers program- one of the unintended effects of more stringent borders is that it has stymied the flow of workers going back into Latin America (and bringing whatever sill set they developed here back to their home country)

 

[SystemShock]

Establish a federal jobs guarantee and/or UBI - ancillary benefit is it takes the ‘they took our jerbs’ arrow out of the rhetorical quiver

Still, a lot of people are not going to like the idea of the government guaranteeing jobs to illegals, much less downright giving them money.

Then establish a strong guest/seasonal workers program-

Define "strong". Such a program (guest/seasonal) exists; it's been in place for a long time.

one of the unintended effects of more stringent borders is that it has stymied the flow of workers going back into Latin America (and bringing whatever sill set they developed here back to their home country)

They pick produce the very same way South of the border.

 

[The moose]

Establish a federal jobs guarantee and/or UBI - ancillary benefit is it takes the ‘they took our jerbs’ arrow out of the rhetorical quiver
Then establish a strong guest/seasonal workers program- one of the unintended effects of more stringent borders is that it has stymied the flow of workers going back into Latin America (and bringing whatever sill set they developed here back to their home country)

I agree completely. The people we have invested in need to be protected. Get them a way to citizenship.

The the whole visa program needs an overhaul.

I have no problem with seasonal workers. Just we need to get rid or the three season visas. The h2b visa is 9 months and is a way to drive wages down in certain industries.

When people talk about seasonal workers they are thinking about people picking berries not people in construction, forestry, housekeeping, restaurant workers, meat processing, and on and on.

This practice keeps the wages down for people that work exceptionally hard in dangerous jobs.

The best part is the way the employer then becomes their landlord, travel agent, and then get to deduct from their exceptionally low wage to then turn more profit by packing them in small apartments.

The sad part is this is because people bought the we can't afford to pay nonsense.

Washington state has proved that higher wages mean more potential customers.

It is just crazy to think that henry ford figured this out one hundred years ago and we can't. If I pay my employees better they then can become the customer.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Still, a lot of people are not going to like the idea of the government guaranteeing jobs to illegals, much less downright giving them money.


Define "strong". Such a program (guest/seasonal) exists; it's been in place for a long time.


They pick produce the very same way South of the border.

the FJP/UBI was for american citizens - it stands on it's own merits but also acts as a protection against the "illegals are coming for our jobs" attack