• 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

I'm still waiting to hear the moral argument in favor of hard borders with federal gatekeeping, as opposed to borders like between states.
 
The reality is we need something between hard borders and no borders.
 
RChildress107 said:
Wrangor I hate to break it to you, but the only hope we have of fixing. Our immigration system is for Democrats to come up with a coherent policy and win enough elections to implement it. That doesn’t mean conservative ideas don’t have a place in immigration policy, it just means those ideas aren’t going to come from or be supported by the current Republican Party.

I'll reply in red to your comments. Good thoughts, but I do have some questions and disagreements. First - don't hate to break anything to me. I am fine with a Democratic rule that agrees with my principals. Democrats had the power to make changes to immigration and Obama and his cohorts chose not to. It isn't as simple as replacing Republicans, because Democrats have proven to not be interested in doing anything either.

The first thing I’d like to see is breaking the immigration “system” down to its component parts:

1. Border Security (keeping bad people and stuff out): This is the only piece of the immigration system that should fall under Homeland Security. The sole goal is to prevent individuals that pose a threat from entering the country. It’s done through intelligence and technology. It should be separate from the rest of the immigration system, but every other piece of the system should be judged by whether it makes this task easier.

Good start. I think this is the first component. Safety.

2. Immigration processing (awarding visas, green cards, citizenship, etc.): the goal is for every immigrant to enter this system when they arrive at a point of entry (or at the earliest possible moment for those already here). Everyone is assigned a status that gives them varying levels of security, but everyone gets in unless border security seems them a legitimate threat. Once in the system, you have the opportunity to move towards citizenship and the responsibility to continually update your status. Basically, as long as you are working or in school, are paying taxes, and stay out of trouble you keep your status. If not, your status gets revoked (after due process), you are asked to voluntarily leave the country, and you are referred to #3.

I am a little confused by your thoughts here. Philosophically I can go here, everyone in...but does this mean that regardless of whether they have a visa? We just let anyone in and hope that our security protocols for finding them once they are in the country are sufficient? This seems a bit naive. Again - I like a more open, trackable system, but not sure the 'everyone gets in' system is realistic. Seems a bit too idealistic considering the state of humanity. I would like to hear further thoughts on how you would see this working out? If anyone comes up to the southern/northern border they are allowed in as long as they don't have a security flag? Elaborate a bit when you get a chance.

3. Immigration enforcement (kicking bad people out): This is it’s own agency who’s sole responsibility is to execute warrants for deportation referred to them by #2 (or in rare cases #1). They must prioritize deportating violent criminals or national security threats.

Not sure why this wouldn't be underneath the same agency as #2. Separating these two don't make sense. What is the purpose of creating a wall between the 2 functions of immigration.

4. Humanitarian: America should be the standard bearer for accepting the world’s refugees and asylum seekers. Full stop. We should never find ourselves looking more like mid-30s Nazi Germany than modern day Canada. And I’m sorry Wrangor but that’s not hyperbole.

It is hyperbole, but your point is taken. How do you account for the current strategy of claiming asylum as a means to enter the country and disappear. This is most certainly an intellectual choice that is being made because it is effective. I would say that a good portion of the 'taking advantage of the asylum' would disappear if we had a more transparent system, so my own personal opinion is that we would be more open to asylum until we have a more trackable/open immigration processing system in place, but at some point you have to address the fact that immigrants are dishonestly claiming asylum because it is effective.

5. Foreign Aid: The best way to stop the flow of immigrants isn’t to try and close the border and terrorize those that come as a deterrent to others. It is to incentivize people, especially in Central and South America, to stay where they are.

Broad strokes here. I personally think it has to be both. Providing for your family is (should be) the #1 priority for any parent. If it takes claiming asylum when I don't need it or jumping a river and finding work in the US, you can be sure that I would be one of those fathers coming to the US too. However no amount of foreign aid will be able to make up for the economic juggernaut that the US is, and will continue to be. You can't buy your way out of an immigration issue. At some point you have to make a stand, and tell illegal immigrants. Come here legally or don't come at all. Again, you can't do that IMO until you have a comprehensive method to do so, but you also need to put the rules in place for the longterm. Foreign aid isn't going to stop a father or mother for providing for their family, and there will always be economic losers in Central and South America.

6. Economic: The concern of immigrants taking American’s jobs is overwrought, but it’s not entirely unwarranted. Though it’s a separate issue, any rollout of comprehensive immigration reform has to include a plan for helping displaced workers.
Click to expand...
I am personally less concerned about this. As an athlete/coach may the best man or woman win. However for the safety of our country, I feel it is important to have a structured, rule based method of immigration that keeps us secure, exemplifies our care for the needy, and creates a system that incentifies the best and the brightest to come and contribute to our society.
 
"I'll reply in red to your comments. Good thoughts, but I do have some questions and disagreements. First - don't hate to break anything to me. I am fine with a Democratic rule that agrees with my principals. Democrats had the power to make changes to immigration and Obama and his cohorts chose not to. It isn't as simple as replacing Republicans, because Democrats have proven to not be interested in doing anything either. "

This is totally false. Obama worked with the Gang of Eight to put together a comprehensive immigration plan that was blocked by McConnell and Ryan from coming up for a vote that would have passed.
 
I am a little confused by your thoughts here. Philosophically I can go here, everyone in...but does this mean that regardless of whether they have a visa? We just let anyone in and hope that our security protocols for finding them once they are in the country are sufficient? This seems a bit naive. Again - I like a more open, trackable system, but not sure the 'everyone gets in' system is realistic. Seems a bit too idealistic considering the state of humanity. I would like to hear further thoughts on how you would see this working out? If anyone comes up to the southern/northern border they are allowed in as long as they don't have a security flag? Elaborate a bit when you get a chance.
Click to expand...

That's basically how our parole system works today. The parolee is released into society, but it's on them to follow the requirements and/or show up in an office every set period of time. If they don't, a warrant is issued for their arrest.

Seems like a pretty transferable system to those awaiting immigration processing.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is also a good point. There are a lot of Republicans in agriculture, construction, and hospitality who fully abuse illegal immigrants to do work for them. I think you could incorporate that into Chill's #2 point. While I know this board certainly doesn't (this is a conservative flaw), there is plenty of blame to go around in this game, and the business owners that take advantage of the muck and mire have a large share in that blame. We should make it economically problematic for them to do so.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you Thunderbolt. Please continue to post your thoughts. I have my ideas on this subject, but am seeking a more informed, well rounded viewpoint. I think this is a huge issue for our country over the next 10-20 years and I would like my opinion to be based not only on facts (which can be manipulated), but wisdom from people who have spent the intellectual equity acquiring a strong viewpoint. Thanks.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
"that's what she said" is a joke, you idiot
Click to expand...

That had NOTHING to do with the post I quoted:

"I'll reply in red to your comments. Good thoughts, but I do have some questions and disagreements. First - don't hate to break anything to me. I am fine with a Democratic rule that agrees with my principals. Democrats had the power to make changes to immigration and Obama and his cohorts chose not to. It isn't as simple as replacing Republicans, because Democrats have proven to not be interested in doing anything either. "

His response to my post about borders. But why be accurate when you can be a douchebag. You've got the latter down pat.
 
I'll try to piecemeal a few responses as I have time today.

Wrangor said:
It is hyperbole, but your point is taken. How do you account for the current strategy of claiming asylum as a means to enter the country and disappear. This is most certainly an intellectual choice that is being made because it is effective. I would say that a good portion of the 'taking advantage of the asylum' would disappear if we had a more transparent system, so my own personal opinion is that we would be more open to asylum until we have a more trackable/open immigration processing system in place, but at some point you have to address the fact that immigrants are dishonestly claiming asylum because it is effective.
Click to expand...

This doesn't happen as often as you think. The in absentia rate for asylum hearings for the last 5 years that we have data fluctuates between 11% to 28% (meaning about 73% - 89% of immigrants claiming asylum show up for their hearing). When looking at those that either have legal representation or a family case manager, the appearance rate jumps up to a little over 98%.

There was a family case worker program that had a 99% appearance rate that cost $35/family per day (as opposed to the current detention that cost $395/day for a family or $723/day for an unaccompanied minor). But this program was discontinued by the Trump administration in early 2017.
 
RJKarl said:
That had NOTHING to do with the post I quoted:

"I'll reply in red to your comments. Good thoughts, but I do have some questions and disagreements. First - don't hate to break anything to me. I am fine with a Democratic rule that agrees with my principals. Democrats had the power to make changes to immigration and Obama and his cohorts chose not to. It isn't as simple as replacing Republicans, because Democrats have proven to not be interested in doing anything either. "

His response to my post about borders. But why be accurate when you can be a douchebag. You've got the latter down pat.
Click to expand...

YOU are a fucking idiot.
 
Hopefully I can jump in with some more specific policy ideas, but I believe any reasonably attainable immigration has to be built on four principles:

1) It should be harder to immigrate illegally
2) It should be much easier to immigrate legally
3) There needs to be a plan in place to deal with those that are undocumented that is both humane and does not disrupt the country's economy, including a path to citizenship for those with TPS, DACA, and others who are undocumented.
4) Ensures that the country lives up to it's stated and aspirational ideals of humanity in offering safe harbor for refugees and asylees.
 
IamThunderbolt said:
I'll try to piecemeal a few responses as I have time today.



This doesn't happen as often as you think. The in absentia rate for asylum hearings for the last 5 years that we have data fluctuates between 11% to 28% (meaning about 73% - 89% of immigrants claiming asylum show up for their hearing). When looking at those that either have legal representation or a family case manager, the appearance rate jumps up to a little over 98%.

There was a family case worker program that had a 99% appearance rate that cost $35/family per day (as opposed to the current detention that cost $395/day for a family or $723/day for an unaccompanied minor). But this program was discontinued by the Trump administration in early 2017.
Click to expand...

Treating asylum seekers like human beings who came here seeking a better life for their families is a better option than treating them like alien invaders.
 
RJKarl said:
That had NOTHING to do with the post I quoted:

"I'll reply in red to your comments. Good thoughts, but I do have some questions and disagreements. First - don't hate to break anything to me. I am fine with a Democratic rule that agrees with my principals. Democrats had the power to make changes to immigration and Obama and his cohorts chose not to. It isn't as simple as replacing Republicans, because Democrats have proven to not be interested in doing anything either. "

His response to my post about borders. But why be accurate when you can be a douchebag. You've got the latter down pat.
Click to expand...

you miss obvious, culturally vanilla jokes at a clip only a robot or non-Earthbound human could achieve. you should be thanking me for exposing you to humanity
 
No, I got the joke part. You enjoy being a douche but hate being called on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top