• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Reasonable discussion on illegal immigration

Respectfully disagree on the concept that border security has to come first. This is a Republican talking point to stall action on any other aspect of immigration. It is not tenable for several reasons:
1. Immigration hardliners will always move the goalposts on border security. No matter how much money is spent or how few migrants get through, they will always want more money and less migrants, and they will always say they won't negotiate until their demands are met.
2. The physical border only represents half or less than half of illegal entry. Visa overstays account for the other half. So the demand to control borders as a starting point is arbitrary.
3. The nation has real workforce needs and real humanitarian issues that need to be resolved. Putting all that on hold until hardliner's border security needs are satisfied (which will never happen, see point 1) just means wasting more time, losing more productivity and tax dollars, and harming more people.

All that said, a large majority of Americans want reasonably strong borders, only a tiny fringe supports open borders or a 'we'll take everyone' mentality. A state does need to control its borders to the extent reasonably possible, and Democrats need to message that they are serious about border security and about demanding that people follow the law. The problem is right now the law is irretrievably broken, and it's a delicate balance to say on the one hand there should be a path to citizenship for people who are currently undocumented, but we're going to fix the system and demand that future immigrants follow it. Nonetheless that is what needs to happen.
 
Liquid Karma said:
What did he say that was offensive?
Click to expand...

Well it was kind of tongue in cheek. But Wrangor has a tendency to come across really reasonable in his language, when his ideology is still really problematic and damaging.

Wrangor said:
We need an airtight border. I don't think that looks like a wall, but we have to figure out a way to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants.

Democrats are playing on naive sympathies and demonizing the right, and Republicans are playing on unrealistic fear and demonizing the immigrant. In both scenarios there is truth to be found in the accusations, but in both scenarios there is a mountain of falsehood.

Our illegal immigrants on the southern border are dying to vote conservative if the Republican party would just get out of the way. They are a deeply religious, familial, bootstraps culture who value work (this is a massive generalization, but there is a reason that illegal immigrants primarily find work in construction, janitorial, and agriculture. Obviously employees are easier to 'hide' in these fields, but it is also difficult work that citizens often don't want to do). In my opinion a streamlined immigration party that emphasizes legal immigration, and makes it easier to legally come to the States would not only be good for the USA, but great for the Republican party if and when some of these immigrants became citizens.

The most startling enlightenment for me is just how much they appreciate the USA, and even our immigration policy. They are just happy to be here, and the husband is an EXTREMELY smart electrical engineer for a local manufacturing company (that part isn't surprising, just mentioning it to state that this couple on a macro scale is a huge net positive for our country). I think I expected some condescension towards Trump, or his rhetoric, but pretty much, Elvin and Rince (my two friends) have an appreciation and understanding for why Trump is pulling the reins.
Click to expand...

Nothing is really explicitly offensive in any of this language, but the ideology can be offensive.

First off, we DON'T need an "airtight" border. This just seems to promote and reinforce the need for a militarized border. The term "illegal immigrant" can be offensive on its own.

Then we get a nice little false equivalency that the left demonizing the right for *checks notes*, caging children, forcing them psychotropic drugs, inflicting sexual violence, terrorizing undocumented people during climate crisis, etc. is the same as the right drumming up fear of others. Both sides, yall.

Then we get this little great insight that people that are religious and hardworking are conservative. I think others have already knocked that as bad.

And then we get to the idea of deserving vs. undeserving. Skilled workers from India deserve to come here whenever so they can make money for the elite capitalist class. Representative Kevin Yoder, before getting slammed by Laura Ingraham and the neo-nazis, was working with Indian community in KC for immigration reform for skilled workers.
IMO, as long as we think through this framing of deserving and undeserving, we will ignore those most marginalized and oppressed, and continue to demonize impoverished immigrants fleeing crisis.
 
sailordeac said:
The first step is to be able to control the border and make it secure. Without control of one's own border, no immigration policy can be successful; it will only result in chaos. Even talking about immigration policy without secure borders makes little sense because no policy can work under such circumstances.

Once secure borders have been established, one needs to face the basic question: who decides, the migrant or the US authorities. If the US authorities have no say, then the border is in effect open and talking about immigration policy is pointless. If the US authorities do get to select whom to admit and whom not to admit, then there must be clear criteria on whom to allow in: who, why, under what conditions and with what characteristics. And a fruitful discussion on these points would be essential.

The difficulty in trying to help the potential migrants where they are is that the problem is not just economic but also political. It will not help much to provide economic assistance to politically disfunctional countries. Furthermore, many of the countries where migrants come from probably lack the infrastructure to make economic assistence be effective. It's probably one of the reasons people want to leave.
Click to expand...

If there is one person to not welcome to this "reasonable" discussion, it would be the Hungarian Nazi.
 
Deacon923 said:
All that said, a large majority of Americans want reasonably strong borders, only a tiny fringe supports open borders or a 'we'll take everyone' mentality. A state does need to control its borders to the extent reasonably possible, and Democrats need to message that they are serious about border security and about demanding that people follow the law. The problem is right now the law is irretrievably broken, and it's a delicate balance to say on the one hand there should be a path to citizenship for people who are currently undocumented, but we're going to fix the system and demand that future immigrants follow it. Nonetheless that is what needs to happen.
Click to expand...

Not saying you meant it this way, but this logic is DIRECTLY linked to the expansion of mass incarceration in the US. If we keep thinking this way, while democrats can tame down the language with efforts to reform and what not, the reality will be more funding equaling more militarization and more incarceration.
 
Immigration might be the biggest arena of talking points, like just crazy statements that don’t really mean anything, like secure the border or open borders. If you want to hit immigration hard you eliminate the work, by eliminating the work you have no incentive to be here. So step one is massive fines and enforcement of work policies while on the flip side opening up a reasonable way for temporary work requirements to be met that also offers a pathway to citizenship. So you employ someone that’s not verifiable you are slapped with a massive penalty, you also though have the ability to be like I need 100 strawberry workers no questions asked, here’s what we pay open to Americans to apply for x number of days if not filled it gets put out for work visas, have enough good points from doing your work visa requirements, etc... easier path to citizenship.
 
Deacon923 said:
Respectfully disagree on the concept that border security has to come first. This is a Republican talking point to stall action on any other aspect of immigration. It is not tenable for several reasons:
1. Immigration hardliners will always move the goalposts on border security. No matter how much money is spent or how few migrants get through, they will always want more money and less migrants, and they will always say they won't negotiate until their demands are met.
2. The physical border only represents half or less than half of illegal entry. Visa overstays account for the other half. So the demand to control borders as a starting point is arbitrary.
3. The nation has real workforce needs and real humanitarian issues that need to be resolved. Putting all that on hold until hardliner's border security needs are satisfied (which will never happen, see point 1) just means wasting more time, losing more productivity and tax dollars, and harming more people.

All that said, a large majority of Americans want reasonably strong borders, only a tiny fringe supports open borders or a 'we'll take everyone' mentality. A state does need to control its borders to the extent reasonably possible, and Democrats need to message that they are serious about border security and about demanding that people follow the law. The problem is right now the law is irretrievably broken, and it's a delicate balance to say on the one hand there should be a path to citizenship for people who are currently undocumented, but we're going to fix the system and demand that future immigrants follow it. Nonetheless that is what needs to happen.
Click to expand...

Will add more tonight when I have more time, but as to this - it's closer to 2/3rd of undocumented immigrants are from visa overstays.

The biggest problem is the lack of legal avenues to immigrate. As it stands now, the Charlotte district is just processing PARs (Petition for Alien Relatives) from 1993. That's a 25 year backlog on the "easiest" way to to obtain an immigrant visa.

More of this later, but the current employment based immigrant visas don't come close to needed workforce. We only have 40,000 employment visas for non highly-skilled immigrants with less than a master's degree - far less than our economy needs, especially at its current unemployment rate. Yet, once they are here, we have a tax code and employment structure that conveniently looks the other way in terms of undocumented immigrants, using them for labor and tax revenue (2015 numbers: a little over $23 billion in income tax and $12 billion paid into social security - which they can't access - all this ignoring property and sales tax contributions) while providing no protection and incurring little cost (there is some cost to educate kids and provide emergency healthcare).

There isn't a simple fix, but it has to start with updating numbers and flow of legal immigration avenues.

Spending money on judges for asylum cases would help a lot as well. Those that have a credible claim could get on with their life and those without will be turned away in a timely manner, lessening the probability of not complying with the judgement.
 
birdman said:
923 touches on this by recognizing that the root of the problem currently is the dysfunctional nation states in Central America. I see two possible avenues to consider that might reduce the emigration pressure out of Central America: 1) decriminalizing, or even legalizing drugs in the US will reduce the hold that drug gangs have on society in Central America and thus reduce violence in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala; many immigrants are fleeing dangerous/violent environments and abject poverty; 2) significant investment in Central American economies...Costa Rica is not a shit hole but has a stable economy based on eco-tourism agriculture and some industry. The country made a decision 30 years ago, following a border war with Nicaragua to end it's army and invest in educating it's youth and conserving it's natural resources, now, Northward emigration from CR is low.
Click to expand...

First of all, I am not a huge expert in Central America, but I had a good friend that lived/worked in both Guatemala and Costa Rica for several years. I visited him in Guatemala and remember him making a comment about how much more corrupt the govt. was in Guatemala than CR. That companies would try to do work in, set up a factories in, etc. Guatemala, and everybody of influence would demand some sort of bribe/kickback/payoff. The companies would eventually say "screw it" and end up in CR, where that sort of corruption didn't exist (or at least on a much less level). Also, if I am not mistaken, CR is also unique in that it did not have significant civil war in the 70s-80s-90s. I believe Guatemala's lasted close to 30 years, and all they had to show for it at the end was more guns than people in the country. I guess what I am saying is that a significant investment in the "economies" of places like Guatemala really ends up going into the wallets of the people that are in control. And my sense is those people want the majority of the country to remain as "have-nots", so they can remain in power.
 
Deacon923 said:
Respectfully disagree on the concept that border security has to come first. This is a Republican talking point to stall action on any other aspect of immigration. It is not tenable for several reasons:
1. Immigration hardliners will always move the goalposts on border security. No matter how much money is spent or how few migrants get through, they will always want more money and less migrants, and they will always say they won't negotiate until their demands are met.
2. The physical border only represents half or less than half of illegal entry. Visa overstays account for the other half. So the demand to control borders as a starting point is arbitrary.
3. The nation has real workforce needs and real humanitarian issues that need to be resolved. Putting all that on hold until hardliner's border security needs are satisfied (which will never happen, see point 1) just means wasting more time, losing more productivity and tax dollars, and harming more people.

All that said, a large majority of Americans want reasonably strong borders, only a tiny fringe supports open borders or a 'we'll take everyone' mentality. A state does need to control its borders to the extent reasonably possible, and Democrats need to message that they are serious about border security and about demanding that people follow the law. The problem is right now the law is irretrievably broken, and it's a delicate balance to say on the one hand there should be a path to citizenship for people who are currently undocumented, but we're going to fix the system and demand that future immigrants follow it. Nonetheless that is what needs to happen.
Click to expand...


One must be able to control one's borders, otherwise no policy can succeed.

If the visa system is broken, then it needs to be fixed.

During the last amnesty promises were made that in the future immigrants will have to follow the law. Now, here we are. How many times is this empty promise that in the future people will have to follow the law be repeated and broken?
 
sailordeac said:
[/B]

One must be able to control one's borders, otherwise no policy can succeed.

If the visa system is broken, then it needs to be fixed.

During the last amnesty promises were made that in the future immigrants will have to follow the law. Now, here we are. How many times is this empty promise that in the future people will have to follow the law be repeated and broken?
Click to expand...

What would you do with the millions of people here without documentation whose only crime was crossing the border or overstaying their visas?
 
Bubble Boy said:
First of all, I am not a huge expert in Central America, but I had a good friend that lived/worked in both Guatemala and Costa Rica for several years. I visited him in Guatemala and remember him making a comment about how much more corrupt the govt. was in Guatemala than CR. That companies would try to do work in, set up a factories in, etc. Guatemala, and everybody of influence would demand some sort of bribe/kickback/payoff. The companies would eventually say "screw it" and end up in CR, where that sort of corruption didn't exist (or at least on a much less level). Also, if I am not mistaken, CR is also unique in that it did not have significant civil war in the 70s-80s-90s. I believe Guatemala's lasted close to 30 years, and all they had to show for it at the end was more guns than people in the country. I guess what I am saying is that a significant investment in the "economies" of places like Guatemala really ends up going into the wallets of the people that are in control. And my sense is those people want the majority of the country to remain as "have-nots", so they can remain in power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, corruption is a big problem for sure. A lot of that is also tied to drug money in those countries. But it can be done. Panama had a civil war and a dictator in the 70's and 80's plus lots of drug cartel influence but the country is fairly successful almost entirely because the US invested in the canal and maintained investments in the canal. We can't build a canal in every country obviously, but my point is there are ways to get past the corruption if it's done on a large enough scale.
 
RJKarl said:
What would you do with the millions of people here without documentation whose only crime was crossing the border or overstaying their visas?
Click to expand...

Unlawful presence (overstaying a visa) isn't a crime.

Improper entry is a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than 6 months in jail and a $250 fine.

These distinctions are important, especially when discussing possible paths to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
Unlawful presence (overstaying a visa) isn't a crime.

Improper entry is a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than 6 months in jail and a $250 fine.

These distinctions are important, especially when discussing possible paths to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Click to expand...

I understand that.

But Sailor won't answer.
 
Oh yeah sailor is definitely a racist, possible Nazi, likely something even worse.
 
birdman said:
Yeah, corruption is a big problem for sure. A lot of that is also tied to drug money in those countries. But it can be done. Panama had a civil war and a dictator in the 70's and 80's plus lots of drug cartel influence but the country is fairly successful almost entirely because the US invested in the canal and maintained investments in the canal. We can't build a canal in every country obviously, but my point is there are ways to get past the corruption if it's done on a large enough scale.
Click to expand...

On a macro level, I agree. I will say this though (and again, I am far from on expert on that area but probably know a tiny bit more than the average American just from having gone down there and knowing some people down there) - if I am not mistaken, Panama is another country that really didn't have a civil war as well. It seems the most messed up countries down there are the ones that did have major civil wars, all of which the US was VERY involved in. And my sense is the US would still rather tolerate corrupt power structures down there, if those power structures prevent an extreme left turn of their governments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top