The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[steve09ru]

Illegal immigration numbers are stable and not increasing which is good but point 2 is where I think the concern is legitimate:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

 

its costly to support year over year at the current numbers in terms of jobs, benefits, etc. and it shouldn't matter if they have felony convictions or not.  I'm all for legal immigration but we do need to increase focus on illegals.  

 

If the jobs illigal immigrants held went to the citizens, that would create around the same number of new jobs created under Obamas term and8 million more than bushs term

[haithman]

Why does he care how much the wall will cost if Mexico is paying for it anyways?

[DogofWar1]

9 minutes ago, haithman said:

Why does he care how much the wall will cost if Mexico is paying for it anyways?

He's just such a nice guy.  The nicest guy.  He's gonna make them pay for it, but try to save them money.

[TradeTheBeal!]

17 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

He's just such a nice guy.  The nicest guy.  He's gonna make them pay for it, but try to save them money.

 

Yeah...the exchange rate is tricky these days.  Trump is just trying to help share the load any way that he can.

[Spearfeather]

3 hours ago, haithman said:

Why does he care how much the wall will cost if Mexico is paying for it anyways?

 

 

Because we're probably going to pay for it, before he tries to make Mexico pay us back.

[Larry]

4 hours ago, SkinssRvA said:

The constitution affords that right to its citizens. 

 

The constitution does not grant ANY rights to citizens. (Or to anybody else). 

 

It grants power to, and imposes limitations upon, the US government. 

[SkinssRvA]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

The constitution does not grant ANY rights to citizens. (Or to anybody else). 

 

It grants power to, and imposes limitations upon, the US government. 

Yes.  It affords the people their rights by setting limitations on the power the federal gov't has to infringe upon our natural, born rights. Perhaps the better word would have been recognizes.

 

i realize there is the 14th amendment to protect the right of illegal aliens.  But it is also my understanding that congress can impose regulations that could circumvent said amendment. It's  also my understanding that enforcing a ban on a particular people (skin color, religion, country, name, etc) is completely at the discretion of the president as long as he can prove they are detrimental to the interest of the US.  It's yet to be seen whether or not he can do that.  

[JSSkinz]

How do you live here 5, 10, 15, or 20 years and not eventually get proper paperwork (Unless you're a criminal)?

 

I think our Government is just as guilty as the illegals because both sides have become lazy, the Government turns a blind eye and have become enablers and illegals know they are safe from consequence so they live entire lifetimes here without acquiring the proper paperwork.

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, SkinssRvA said:

i realize there is the 14th amendment to protect the right of illegal aliens.  But it is also my understanding that congress can impose regulations that could circumvent said amendment. It's  also my understanding that enforcing a ban on a particular people (skin color, religion, country, name, etc) is completely at the discretion of the president as long as he can prove they are detrimental to the interest of the US.  It's yet to be seen whether or not he can do that.  

 

I've been hearing and reading this a lot lately and I just don't get where this view point comes from.  This is settled law and has been for over a century now.  The prominent constitutional rights in question as applicable to the ban such as due process and 1st amendment are fully in force for anyone in the United States, whether they be citizens, permanent residents, visa holders, or illegal aliens.  And no, you can't circumvent constitutional violations by any means other than a constitutional amendment.  In order for Trump's EO to survive impermissible discrimination, it would have to survive strict scrutiny, which it obviously can't, and that wouldn't cure the due process issue anyway.

 

Now admittedly, rights of those seeking entry in to the US are still being fleshed out.  The problem here for the administration is less so at the injunction level, but more so on the merits.  Immigration law specifically bans discrimination based on national origin since 1960's.  Trump is arguing that his power under suspension for national interest (which dates back to law made in the 50's) gives him power for this EO.  Assuming arguendo that 50's national interest suspension as applied to national origin can survive the specific 60's ban on discrimination based on national origin (not a given), there has to be a basis for the national interest suspension.  There has been no evidence presented so far that these immigrants or visitors from these seven countries present a national security threat.  

 

But, regardless of the administration's evidence, the ban as applied to permanent residents and visa holders is absolutely unconstitutional.

 

Now, let's set aside whether the president can do this to whether the president should do this.  

 

Simple issue, rural doctors.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/10/news/economy/visa-ban-rural-doctor-shortage/index.html

 

Quote

More than 6,000 medical trainees from foreign countries enroll every year in U.S. residency programs through J-1 visas. About 1,000 of these trainees are from countries caught up in the ban, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. J-1 visa holders who were out of the country when the ban went into effect were prohibited from entering the U.S. and unable to start or finish school as long as the ban is in place.

The State Department told CNNMoney that the government may issue J-1 visas to people who are from one of the blocked countries if it is of "national interest," but would not confirm whether a doctor shortage would qualify for such consideration.

"The stress and concern generated by the short-term executive order could have long-term implications, with fewer physicians choosing training programs in the states and subsequently magnifying the deficit in providers willing to practice in underserved and rural areas," said Dr. Larry Dial, vice dean for clinical affairs at Marshall University's school of medicine in Huntington, West Virginia

 

This is bat**** stupid.  Rural area needs doctors.  Badly.  About 1 in 6 foreign doctors training in the US are from the seven banned countries (cuz I'm gonna take a wild guess that life as a doctor in the US is a lot better than life as a doctor in Yemen, Syria, wherever, not because they went to medical school in hopes of bamboozling the US immigration system and come here to commit acts of terror), and they are the ones eligible to stay if they go fill a position in an under served area.  A blanket, hamfisted approach like Trump's EO causes these kind of massive, unintended (I hope), unnecessary, and completely avoidable consequences.  It's stupid.  It's idiotic.  Don't die on small hills.  Regardless of one's position on the Trump presidency, they got this one wrong.  The language is wrong.  The rollout is wrong.  And now the management of the fallout is wrong.  Just go back to the drawing board and work with Congress to do it right.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, SkinssRvA said:

Yes.  It affords the people their rights by setting limitations on the power the federal gov't has to infringe upon our natural, born rights. Perhaps the better word would have been recognizes.

 

I'll try making it clearer.  

 

The constitution does not say "Citizens of the US shall have freedom of speech (as long as they're within the US, and the US isn;t at war, or has though of any of the other reasons that people like to (incorrectly) assert as reasons why "the constitution doesn't apply here"".  

 

It says "the US Government may not limit people's freedom of speech".  

 

Any people.  Any where.  

 

The First Amendment does not grant freedom of speech, to US citizens or to anybody else.  It specifies what the US government may not do.  (Because the people have chosen not to give it that power.)  

 

It's a pet peeve of mine.  Whenever people want to give the government some power.  (For example, during the debate over GTMO.)  somebody who does not grasp the most basic fact about the constitution will pull the phrase "the constitution doesn't apply to . . . . " out of his anal orifice.  

 

For one thing, it's not true.  There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that specifies any place, person, or circumstance which it does or does not apply.  

 

But for another thing, the person who's inventing that imaginary claim doesn't even mean it.  He's not really saying "the constitution doesn't apply to GTMO."  If it didn't apply there, then there would be no authority for Congress to spend money there.  The President would not be Commander in Chief there.  Congress would have no authority to appoint military officers there.  The CIA would not exist there.  

 

No, the person saying "the constitution doesn't apply to . . . " is really trying to say "when we go to . . . . , we enter this mythical land in which the parts of the constitution which grant powers to the government expand to infinity, and the parts which limit government powers magically vanish."  

 

The expression I came up with, during the arguments about GTMO, (and which I'm still proud of), is:  

 

The constitution does not apply to Ossama bin Laden.  It applies to George W Bush.  

 

 

[SkinssRvA]

@bearrock

 

the two cases/acts I would refer you to are:

 

Fong yue ting vs USA (settled law)

 

and the immigration and nationality act.

 

also, jimmy carter 

 

200% agree it was implemented poorly. No argument at all from me. For what it's worth I do think he works with congress to get the details right. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, SkinssRvA said:

The constitution affords that right to its citizens. 

 

Courts and the 5th amendment disagree:

 

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

 

(I added the emphasis.)

Edited February 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

31 minutes ago, SkinssRvA said:

@bearrock

 

the two cases/acts I would refer you to are:

 

Fong yue ting vs USA (settled law)

 

and the immigration and nationality act.

 

also, jimmy carter 

 

200% agree it was implemented poorly. No argument at all from me. For what it's worth I do think he works with congress to get the details right. 

 

 

 

Blanket plenary power as espoused in the chinese exclusion line of decisions are no longer good law after Fiaollo and Plasensicia.  At minimum, that Congress's plenary power over immigration gives way to due process rights of permanent residents has been conceded even by the government in Plasencia.

 

INA contains both the prohibtion on discrimination on national origin and president's power under national interest.  

 

Carter had a true national interest case. Iranians took over the embassy and were creating their own forged visa using authentic US equipment.  Carter required all visa issued from US consulate in Iran to be reissued at another consulate for valid entry.  I think we can agree that the evidence supporting national interest is nowhere in the same universe as Trump's EO.  Even then, Carter's approach was much more measured.

 

Edit:

 

Just wanted to add that blanket plenary doctrine is actually up before the Court this term in Jennings.  Given how terror habeas cases have gone in recent years, many think the time is ripe for the Court to finally explicitly strike the black history of Chinese exclusion cases from its history.  That was all before the firestorm over Trump's EO.  Anyhoo, I think reasonable people like us can agree that that there are legitimate immigration reforms that needs to happen and the best way for the Trump administration to make that happen would be working with Congress and taking a very deliberate and thoughtful approach.  Hopefully that is how it unfolds from now.

Edited February 12, 2017 by bearrock

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, steve09ru said:

If the jobs illigal immigrants held went to the citizens, that would create around the same number of new jobs created under Obamas term and8 million more than bushs term

 

Or businesses (e.g. farms) wouldn't be able to compete with over seas products and would go out of business.  The jobs would actually leave the US and we'd import more food from other countries (our trade deficit would go up more), and the people making the money in the US (including the illegal, but also the farm owners who are now out of business because they can't compete with the cheap farm goods produced by the cheap labor in other countries (especially as the supply of labor is going to go up in countries like Mexico and so the cost of labor will go down)) would spend less money in the US having a ripple effect in the economy and negatively affecting businesses that don't hire illegals.

 

(Now, I do think we need to go after illegal immigration.  I'm not a big fan of just allowing laws to be broken, but:

 

1.  I wouldn't be surprised if the net effect on the US economy is negative and includes an increase on US unemployment.

 

2.  The way to do it is by going after the companies that hire workers.  If there are no jobs, illegals will not come here.  As long as there are jobs, people will come here.  It also has the off setting benefit of you can use the money from fines on the employers to help fund the enforcement.

 

3.  Realistically, we have to change our laws (start a guess worker program) or start making plans for the agrarian component of our economy to decrease significantly.)

[The Sisko]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Or businesses (e.g. farms) wouldn't be able to compete with over seas products and would go out of business.  The jobs would actually leave the US and we'd import more food from other countries (our trade deficit would go up more), and the people making the money in the US (including the illegal, but also the farm owners who are now out of business because they can't compete with the cheap farm goods produced by the cheap labor in other countries (especially as the supply of labor is going to go up in countries like Mexico and so the cost of labor will go down)) would spend less money in the US having a ripple effect in the economy and negatively affecting businesses that don't hire illegals.

 

(Now, I do think we need to go after illegal immigration.  I'm not a big fan of just allowing laws to be broken, but:

 

1.  I wouldn't be surprised if the net effect on the US economy is negative and includes an increase on US unemployment.

 

2.  The way to do it is by going after the companies that hire workers.  If there are no jobs, illegals will not come here.  As long as there are jobs, people will come here.  It also has the off setting benefit of you can use the money from fines on the employers to help fund the enforcement.

 

3.  Realistically, we have to change our laws (start a guess worker program) or start making plans for the agrarian component of our economy to decrease significantly.)

I think you're in the right ballpark but I think the overall effects may end up being worse than you described. When we tried the whole get tough, self deportation thing here it worked. Very well in fact. Sadly, for poor JoeBob the farmer, many of his crops rotted in the field. So someone had the brilliant idea of killing two birds with one stone and using this as a jobs program for ex cons. Many of them didn't even last 30 minutes and their productivity didn't even get close to the now skeedaddled ebil Mexican workers. So I think it wouldn't be a case of us them not being competitive on price, but of that segment going away. After all, if they could be replaced but it was just a matter of higher pay, well then the gubment could just swoop in and provide a subsidy.

 

Now let's extrapolate a bit. Georgia is one of, if not the largest producer of chickens in the country. Who do you think processes all those birds? It used to be Juan Valdez but after the crackdown it's more real 'Muricuns. What do you think the chicken processors immediately complained about? Higher wages and workers that *gasp* actually wanted worker's comp for their inevitable carpal tunnel problems and other work related injuries. They even had the nerve to actually call in sick a lot, unlike Juan who just showed up, did the work and was too scared to complain. OK, so their costs went up a bit but they kept churning out the chicken carcasses albeit at a slightly higher cost to consumers, great. However what do you think happens when the outflow grows to an exodus, not just out of our state, but out of the country. Chicken is probably our favorite food by far. Imagine how happy everyone from soccer moms to poor folks in real 'Muricuh are gonna be when the chicken nuggets that are the only thing Jr. will eat and the KFC that southern blobs subsist on is almost too expensive to afford? Now think about that same scenario for almost everything we eat. Yeah, good times. That's why I said earlier that Mexico would do well to decrease the supply of guest workers as the undocumented return and demand better terms on NAFTA - for Mexico. That would be the ultimate loss for Dump and Co. I think his head would literally pop off.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[twa]

Voter ID laws both prevent that and keep the ignorant from breaking the law.

 

Think of the children.

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

Voter ID laws both prevent that and keep the ignorant from breaking the law.

 

Admiring twa's assertion that Voter ID laws prevent people from registering to vote in their real name, and then voting in their real name.  

 

(And that Texas doesn't have Voter ID laws.)  

[twa]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Admiring twa's assertion that Voter ID laws prevent people from registering to vote in their real name, and then voting in their real name.  

 

(And that Texas doesn't have Voter ID laws.)  

 

To get ID here now you must provide birth certificates, which helps in scanning voter rolls.

 

you know, for those illegal votes that never happen.

[PeterMP]

14 hours ago, The Sisko said:

I think you're in the right ballpark but I think the overall effects may end up being worse than you described. When we tried the whole get tough, self deportation thing here it worked. Very well in fact. Sadly, for poor JoeBob the farmer, many of his crops rotted in the field. So someone had the brilliant idea of killing two birds with one stone and using this as a jobs program for ex cons. Many of them didn't even last 30 minutes and their productivity didn't even get close to the now skeedaddled ebil Mexican workers. So I think it wouldn't be a case of us them not being competitive on price, but of that segment going away. After all, if they could be replaced but it was just a matter of higher pay, well then the gubment could just swoop in and provide a subsidy.

 

This is mostly short term, I think  Longer term, either the jobs are going to leave the US, demand is going to drop (it isn't like there aren't a lot of Americans that couldn't afford to eat less), or there is going to be more automation (and realistically, you'll get combinations of the 3, I think).  Chickens be raised all over the world, killed, frozen, and shipped.  China for years has been trying to get it so that chickens raised there can be sold in the US.

 

(demand dropping might also mean a shifting of what people eat from labor intensive things to less labor intensive things. There is a field behind my house.  He regularly raises labor intensive things (tomatoes, cucumber, peppers, water melons, etc.) and uses illegals. There was a field behind my house where I grew up.  They didn't use illegals and mostly used labor un-intensive things (corn, wheat, soybeans).

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[Jumbo]

What would you guys think would be the top three typical social demographics that show up in "Americans who think serious and widespread voter fraud is a real danger to our democracy"

 

I'll go, in order. 

 

I. White

2. Male

3. Christian

 

 

It's always cracked me up how most of my life I've been listening to white male christians being freaked out about dem dere "others"  receiving unfair advantages, not willing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps/hard work and needing gov't $$$ (ooops, hello every red state and millions of gop voters), and are having too much (any) influence on things.

 

And they've had enough, cuz now they have to deal with being told to "accept" as ok all this here sexual deviancy, while knowing it dooms the practitioners and their enablers to eternal damnation----by the ruling (it's their "choice" though) of a loving, perfect, omniscient god who took time from a very busy schedule to firmly address the crucial spiritual importance of consenting adult humans not putting the wrong appendages into the wrong places. Obviously, we pass on ever trying to control the other primates (just impossible---have you been to the zoo?) because they don't have souls (read the book).

 

If you're confused, and all the differing---often conflicting---things you get from various beliebers don't help, real church officials will explain everything for god since he's busy (they can go to the book if needed, and that settles stuff).

 

But I digress. 

[The Sisko]

C'mon Jumbo, let's not dwell on the things that divide the clergy but things they have in common like stuffing the collection plate and undercover so-called sexual deviancy. ?

[visionary]

 

[redskins59]

What I have read is that more than 70% of workers in farms and such tend to be Mexicans--probably mostly illegal immigrants.  However, the thing is, those jobs require a whole lot of labor.  Yeah, I don't see Americans doing those jobs.  It will lead to massive inflation (those of you who are speculative traders might want to buy chicken futures with a 2 year window in mind, if that exists).  Now, one may say that this inflation will be controlled by goods imported from, say, China.  But, uh, the problem is Trump is threatening a 30% tariff. So I am seeing massive inflation in the future.

The Great Recession led to a rise in populism in this country.  What will happen the next time there is another recession?  I fear a leader in the mold of Hitler.  This guy rose in power right after the Great Depression.  Right before the Great Depression, in the early 20's from what I recall, Germany suffered from a massive inflation.  That led to popularity of Hitler's party.  However, Germany's economy improved and Hitler was seen as a clown.  Then the Great Depression hit Germany and rest is history. Free trade has been very good for the country.  This protectionist BS is not going to end well. 

The moment I see another big recession (which may be coming soon), I may have to leave.  The target may be immigrants this time around.