Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Burgold

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Realistically, I think it a lot of the issue with recruiting to STEM is related to how we compensate people with Wall Street people and bankers making a lot of (the) money.

 

 

 

So it is like a capitalist gateway drug? :silly:

Much of STEM seems not much different than accounting.....decent money, but boring cubicle work.

Go STEM and see the world.

https://stem-worksblog.com/2014/06/12/escape-the-cubicle-study-stem/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just depends on the field.  The majority of h1b probably goes to programmers. Now, the biological sciences don't pay a whole lot (and there are a lot of STEM fields that pay diddly).  Someone in the computer science/programming field has the potential to make money rather quickly.  There are tons of startups out there.  A lot of times they pay you through shares of the company.  There is no other field out there with the ability to make you rich as the tech sector does. Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates became rich and famous out of nowhere. Before facebook there was myspace.  Anybody heard of the game clash of clans?  I hear that everybody who works for the company is a millionaire.

It is also true that a lot of newly minted millionaires in the tech sector are first generation immigrants.  If anybody has read the book the millionaire next door, it mentions somewhere that first generation immigrants have a disproportionate number of millionaires.  

Innovation depends big time on immigrants.  You need to have the hunger.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, skinfan2k said:

this is short lived and the American policies for immigrations go back to normal once this clown is out of office. 

 

I would hope this spurs some positives results instead of just returning to the status quo, ie. more awareness of immigrants and what they add to our country, a genuine discussion about addressing the fed immigration policy re; illegal workers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that they are here illegally and the law allows ICE to do what they did.  But this will very likely deter illegal immigrants from seeking shelter from the cold.  Arresting them based on tips from their abusers at the courthouse will have very real and perilous repercussions. (I guess it would be too much to hope that they might be advised of their rights under VAWA?).  Harder crackdown of illegal immigrants will drive them further below the radar which will be obviously bad for those individuals, but also will have tremendous societal costs.  People will be easy targets for the unsavory among us, many will be fearful of assisting the police or testifying jn court.  It will actually encourage the unscrupulous to hire illegal immigrants because they can screw them over in wages, worker's comp, etc and weaponize legal status against them.  Does the law allow these ICE actions?  Sure.  But for crying out loud, there has got to be some exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  

54100463.thumb.jpg.a11de6a9e9a2a80e81fb1af0892ef592.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sec Kelly has changed the word "wall" to "barrier"  and will use it moving forward, and the route he seems to be advocating (new proposals) involve reinforcing and building new fencing (18' high x 6' underground), but not anywhere near for the entire border. Much cheaper and actually might be a bit helpful. Taxpayers pay for it.

 

Report was noting that after all this time and noise, the CBP still has never developed any useful metric for establishing cost versus benefit with fences or walls, or even just general effectiveness. Reminiscent of R & R the ACA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Does the law allow these ICE actions?  Sure. 

 

Based on the earlier article, I suspect they had left the shelter before being detained.  I hope they actually had other criminal offenses that caused them to be targeted in the first place.  Otherwise, it does seem too aggressive.  I'm all for violent criminals, ie known gang members, being removed STAT.

I hope they are more understanding of families whose only crime is crossing a border, and especially Dreamers.

Those that exploit illegal immigrants should also be prosecuted.

 

 I expect more illegal immigrants, especially handy ones, to try and work on their own and bypass informing the govt, especially if E-verify becomes mandatory.

Hopefully Congress can actually work towards immigration reform.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Robbob said:

 

Those that exploit illegal immigrants should also be prosecuted.

 

 

Don't you think that those who employ illegal immigrants at all should be subject to the law? Not just those that exploit them.

 

 

11 hours ago, bearrock said:

I get that they are here illegally and the law allows ICE to do what they did.  But this will very likely deter illegal immigrants from seeking shelter from the cold.  Arresting them based on tips from their abusers at the courthouse will have very real and perilous repercussions. (I guess it would be too much to hope that they might be advised of their rights under VAWA?).  Harder crackdown of illegal immigrants will drive them further below the radar which will be obviously bad for those individuals, but also will have tremendous societal costs.  People will be easy targets for the unsavory among us, many will be fearful of assisting the police or testifying jn court.  It will actually encourage the unscrupulous to hire illegal immigrants because they can screw them over in wages, worker's comp, etc and weaponize legal status against them.  Does the law allow these ICE actions?  Sure.  But for crying out loud, there has got to be some exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  

 

 

Actually, I'm not sure you do "get that they are here illegally" at all. I'm all for compassion for people, but at the same time, a law is useless if not enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Don't you think that those who employ illegal immigrants at all should be subject to the law? Not just those that exploit them.

 

 

Yup. This is another branch of the Rightpocrisy tree. A lot of these people are here to work (despite what the idiots say).

 

you have to look a the system as a whole too. People don't want to pay the real costs of housing, child care, food etc.

 

 We all do pay the true cost anyway. Because of the cost of educating their children, healthcare for the short workers, – Basically a vast majority of them wouldn't be here if that one was hiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

 

Actually, I'm not sure you do "get that they are here illegally" at all. I'm all for compassion for people, but at the same time, a law is useless if not enforced.

That's a rather bold and unargued statement. Selective enforcement and prosecution happens all the time.  Do you think traffic laws are useless?  Most state's domestic violence laws used to give arrest discretion to responding officer.  Now, many require officers to arrest at least one or file a report why not (how many do you think write a report?).  Which is better?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Don't you think that those who employ illegal immigrants at all should be subject to the law? Not just those that exploit them.

 

 

I absolutely think they should.  I just believe that those who seek illegal immigrants so they can pay less than minimum wage / less than legal workers would receive for the same job, or without the worker's compensation protections that legal employees receive should be subject to additional penalties than those that "unknowingly" hire illegals because the id's provided are fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bearrock said:

  Now, many require officers to arrest at least one or file a report why not (how many do you think write a report?).  Which is better?  

 

They must write a report either way in that case, arrests take more time and must be justified.

 

not sure what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, twa said:

 

They must write a report either way in that case, arrests take more time and must be justified.

 

not sure what your point is.

I meant to say the officer has to write up in the report specifically why they chose not to arrest (some states just require arrest without the leeway).  Thanks for pointing that out.  

 

My point was that taking away discretion from those on the ground can often result in inflexibility and result in unintended consequences.  

Edited by bearrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...