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

[LD0506]

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Rage intensifying.....

Edited October 6, 2020 by visionary

[Corcaigh]

The Administration getting it mostly right in changing the rules around H1-B visas including increasing the requirements, and making it much more costly for offshoring IT firms to replace US workers. Firms like TCS, Wipro and Infosys and other IT outsources have consumed much of the annual H1B visa quota, which actually prevent US tech firms from hiring scarce talent.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/h1-b-work-visa-trump-overhaul-restrictions-foreign-guest-workers/#app

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Corcaigh

[wrilbo67]

The H1-B is a raw deal for American workers and the foreign workers who get them.  It basically amounts to indentured servitude for visa-holders and cheap competition for Americans.  It only works for the companies that employ the H1B holders.

 

Oddly enough, the most sensible thing to do is give the H1B holders MORE rights in the system.  That means ensuring they're paid a market-rate US salary for the skills they bring. It also means giving those workers the right to change jobs like any American (i.e. don't tie the visa to the employer).  That way, companies will be reluctant to use the program unless they REALLY need the talent, and they have to give those employees a fair workload or they'll leave.

 

This is actually a step in the right direction IMO.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[China]

Judge Orders Government to Fully Reinstate DACA Program

 

Up to 300,000 additional undocumented immigrants could be allowed to apply for protection from deportation under a new court ruling. President Trump had sought to cancel the program.

 

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to fully restore an Obama-era program designed to shield young, undocumented immigrants from deportation, dealing what could be a final blow to President Trump’s long-fought effort to end the protections.

 

The program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was created by President Barack Obama in 2012. Over the years, it has protected more than 800,000 individuals, known as “dreamers,” who met a series of strict requirements for eligibility.

 

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn directed the administration to allow newly eligible immigrants to file new applications for protection under the program, reversing a memorandum issued in the summer by Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, which restricted the program to people who were already enrolled. As many as 300,000 new applicants could now be eligible, according to the lawyers who pushed for the reinstatement.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Let me preempt this with I am not trying to argue here or make some kind of point.  I am honestly just asking a question and am having trouble finding an explanation that comes off as non-biased.  Also, I realize some of my facts may be off or misunderstood so feel free to correct me.

 

So Obama started DACA through an executive order.  Prior to this, there was not a law or court case that required the DACA plan.  This was strictly a result of being done solely by the executive branch only.   So when Trump tries to undo it through executive action (or repealing one I guess), how is it not legal?  Again not trying to argue what is morally right or wrong.  Just the legalities and how that worked out.  

[wrilbo67]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Let me preempt this with I am not trying to argue here or make some kind of point.  I am honestly just asking a question and am having trouble finding an explanation that comes off as non-biased.  Also, I realize some of my facts may be off or misunderstood so feel free to correct me.

 

So Obama started DACA through an executive order.  Prior to this, there was not a law or court case that required the DACA plan.  This was strictly a result of being done solely by the executive branch only.   So when Trump tries to undo it through executive action (or repealing one I guess), how is it not legal?  Again not trying to argue what is morally right or wrong.  Just the legalities and how that worked out.  

 

I'm not a lawyer, but when it comes to executive orders, Trump has consistently issued them with large fanfare but with minimal instruction on what happens next for the people who enforce policy or are affected by the orders.

 

For instance, when he issued the first travel ban in 2017, there were law-abiding US greencard and visa holders literally sitting in airplanes on their way back to the US from some of those countries. When they landed, the border control checkpoints didn't know how to process them.  Do they get sent back because of the travel ban? Do they get let in because they were coming back in good faith ahead of the travel ban?  Having a greencard in the US means you've basically set forth a plan to make this country your home permanently, and despite whatever certain media sources tell you, its an incredibly long and bureaucratic path.  Sending those individuals back to their home countries meant that they couldn't show up for work on Monday fresh from their vacation, their kids (who in many cases were American citizens) couldn't go to school, etc.  This is a major wrench for someone who, presumably, is trying to become a citizen the first opportunity he/she gets.

 

Likewise with DACA, the people affected are here illegally, but the next steps in cancelling it would be questionable. Do we immediately start arresting them and sending them back to a country they don't know? Yes they are here illegally, but they are literally the smallest threat in our undocumented population.

 

In short, yes, Trump is free to issue any executive order he wants, but what happens next has to be clear from the perspective of the people who enforce the order and are affected by it, otherwise its just empty words. That's been the courts' rationale.  It's not that different from his executive order to ban insurance companies from barring pre-existing conditions (this is literally impossible without the individual mandate). or his pardon of Michael Flynn (it's a blanket statement).

[Cooked Crack]

16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So Obama started DACA through an executive order.  Prior to this, there was not a law or court case that required the DACA plan.  This was strictly a result of being done solely by the executive branch only.   So when Trump tries to undo it through executive action (or repealing one I guess), how is it not legal?  Again not trying to argue what is morally right or wrong.  Just the legalities and how that worked out.  

It's how they did it. A more competent administration would have got it done.

 

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/18/21295518/supreme-court-daca-trump-roberts-regents-university-california-homeland-security

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Let me preempt this with I am not trying to argue here or make some kind of point.  I am honestly just asking a question and am having trouble finding an explanation that comes off as non-biased.  Also, I realize some of my facts may be off or misunderstood so feel free to correct me.

 

So Obama started DACA through an executive order.  Prior to this, there was not a law or court case that required the DACA plan.  This was strictly a result of being done solely by the executive branch only.   So when Trump tries to undo it through executive action (or repealing one I guess), how is it not legal?  Again not trying to argue what is morally right or wrong.  Just the legalities and how that worked out.  

 

It's not illegal.  But SCOTUS held that Trump admin didn't go through appropriate agency review and due diligence to consider the ramifications of such a rescission thus rendering the decision arbitrary and capricious.  Trump admin could easily have rescinded DACA if they crossed the t's and dotted the i's.

[visionary]

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[China]

Border wall builders are blowing the tops off Arizona mountains and toppling century-old saguaros

 

Work crews ignite dynamite blasts in the remote and rugged southeast corner of Arizona, forever reshaping the landscape as they pulverize mountaintops in a rush to build more of President Donald Trump’s border wall before his term ends next month.

 

Each blast in Guadalupe Canyon releases puffs of dust as workers level land to make way for 30-foot-tall steel columns near the New Mexico line. Heavy machines crawl over roads gouged into rocky slopes while one tap-tap-taps open holes for posts on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property.

 

Trump has expedited border wall construction in his last year, mostly in wildlife refuges and Indigenous territory the government owns in Arizona and New Mexico, avoiding the legal fights over private land in busier crossing areas of Texas. The work has caused environmental damage, preventing animals from moving freely and scarring unique mountain and desert landscapes that conservationists fear could be irreversible. The administration says it’s protecting national security, citing it to waive environmental laws in its drive to fulfill a signature immigration policy.

 

Environmentalists hope President-elect Joe Biden will stop the work, but that could be difficult and expensive to do quickly and may still leave pillars towering over sensitive borderlands.

 

The worst damage is along Arizona’s border, from century-old saguaro cactuses toppled in the western desert to shrinking ponds of endangered fish in eastern canyons. Recent construction has sealed off what was the Southwest’s last major undammed river. It’s more difficult for desert tortoises, the occasional ocelot and the world’s tiniest owls to cross the boundary.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[visionary]