US Immigration Policy Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Immigration Policy Megathread

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Ashcans posted:

Initial reactions are... not good. People are still going through it to make sure that we have the whole picture of what is required. The non-immigant stuff is an additional 2 pages of forms and is restricted to your current status (ie, if you are applying for an H-1B, they only care if you have previously used any public benefit while an H-1B in the last couple years). The biggest issue here is that all this information is about the beneficiary (worker) but the forms are signed by the petitioner (company). On the face of it that means you would have to disclose any use of public benefits you used to your employer and they have to review and attest to the information, which is incredibly awkward and invasive. But it's at least doable.

The new requirements for the green card are.... really something. There is an entire additional form to be completed (I-944) which is 18 pages long, and in addition to completing that everyone has to file the following documents:

- Household Income, including your most recent tax return and tax transcripts for members of your household.
- If your income is not high enough (125% of federal poverty), Enumeration of household assets that may be converted to cash in less than 12 months, with documentation of value (ie, bank statements, for any physical assets it requires proof of ownership and an appraisal of value) - this will not apply to a lot of people in general because the bar is low
- Enumeration of all liabilities and debts, including car loans, mortgages, and credit cards
- Copy of your credit report from one of the 3 agencies and your credit score
- Copy of your health insurance policy with terms and coverage, with a letter from the company or other evidence that you are enrolled and covered
- Enumeration of any public benefits you may have received, with documentation including your name, benefit, date you were authorized for the benefit, and dates of receipt.
- Copies of all your educational documents, degrees, transcripts from high school up, with evaluations if these are not US institutions
- List of any occupational skills, including certifications and licenses, apprenticeships or other documents.
- Proof of English or other language literacy(!) You must provide documentation of your skill in English or any other language, either through a literacy test or documentation that you have completed language courses for credit (ie, high school diploma and courses, college transcript showing language course for credit)

These are going to be required for everyone applying for permanent residence, regardless of the basis. So if your spouse is being sponsored based on their job in the US, as a dependent you still have to furnish all this information even if no one has every claimed benefits and you make plenty of money. The justification for this is that USCIS wants to review the 'totality' of the situation to evaluate whether someone might, some day, require public benefits. At this point we have no idea what happens if you just say 'I make $100,000 in pharmaceuticals, gently caress off I'm not giving you all this bullshit'.

Also hosed up - because some of these are 'household', you may have to include information for people in your household who aren't applying for any immigration benefit, or are US citizens.

My biggest concern is that they have created a huge amount of additional paperwork that people are going to have to fill out and complete, a lot of which is really intense and complicated. This is already bad, but last year USCIS amended its policies so that officers are no longer required to issue a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny before denying an application - it was previously the case that they were almost always required to send one of these notices for any deficit in an application, and give the applicant the opportunity to respond and furnish additional documentation. So if you screwed up, you would get a notice and a chance to correct it before a decision was reached. Now, not so. An officer has much greater discretion to simply deny an application, and the more they request and the more they require the greater chance someone is going to forget a tax transcript for their household member or something.

There is a a lot going on here and we're still in the 'initial reaction' phase, but one of the partners emerged and said 'I don't know how we're actually going to file these applications any more'. It's just so much documentation to gather and coordinate, especially for families or more complicated households.

What a bunch of hosed up bullshit. I'm sorry you and your clients have to deal with that.

# ? Oct 11, 2019 00:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 01:09

Ashcans: Jan 2, 2006; Let's do the space-time warp again!

My clients at least have attorneys to deal with this, and a company willing to pay for them to work their way through it. I mean, it's still going to be tough, but the people I work with are high-skilled, well-paid professionals. This kind of thing is absolutely devastating to other groups, especially people who are going it without representation.

I did get a good article in Vox about some of this - it's actually focused on the other change revolving around health insurance that has not been a priority because, again, my clients get health insurance that meets the requirements through their work. But the impact on other immigration streams is even worse than I expected.

# ? Oct 11, 2019 14:25

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Ashcans posted:

My clients at least have attorneys to deal with this, and a company willing to pay for them to work their way through it. I mean, it's still going to be tough, but the people I work with are high-skilled, well-paid professionals. This kind of thing is absolutely devastating to other groups, especially people who are going it without representation.

I did get a good article in Vox about some of this - it's actually focused on the other change revolving around health insurance that has not been a priority because, again, my clients get health insurance that meets the requirements through their work. But the impact on other immigration streams is even worse than I expected.

Do the district court decisions about the public charge rule that came out today make any difference to this?

# ? Oct 12, 2019 00:01

Ashcans: Jan 2, 2006; Let's do the space-time warp again!

Sorry I didn't respond to that question earlier; it was up in the air when I went home and I was trying hard not to think about this over the weekend. The answer is that USCIS has decided to continue the use of the older forms while the injunction is in place, so we got a small reprieve. At least until the matter is actually decided.

# ? Oct 15, 2019 01:38

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

So a friends, friends daughter moved from Sweden to the US when she was 19. She got married to a lawyer and had 2 kids, lived the life of a luxury wife for 20 years. Got into drugs and alcohol. The husband kicked her out and got sole custody of the kids. She had no money or insurance or anywhere to live so she moved back to Sweden. Now she's worried that she will never be able to see her daughters again because the way she understands it is that if she stays out of the US for a year or more she can't return to live there. How does it really work?

She has never worked in her life and has no skills or money and she's currently being shunned by her family in Sweden so she's living with a friend.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 21:01

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Katt posted:

So a friends, friends daughter moved from Sweden to the US when she was 19. She got married to a lawyer and had 2 kids, lived the life of a luxury wife for 20 years. Got into drugs and alcohol. The husband kicked her out and got sole custody of the kids. She had no money or insurance or anywhere to live so she moved back to Sweden. Now she's worried that she will never be able to see her daughters again because the way she understands it is that if she stays out of the US for a year or more she can't return to live there. How does it really work?

She has never worked in her life and has no skills or money and she's currently being shunned by her family in Sweden so she's living with a friend.

It depends on whether she ever became a citizen. 20 years is more than enough time to become a citizen, and if she did, that one isn't revoked by being away. If she was on a green card and stayed away from the country for a year or more, the USCIS may consider her green card abandoned and she will probably lose it unless she made arrangements prior to leaving.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 21:23

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

joepinetree posted:

It depends on whether she ever became a citizen. 20 years is more than enough time to become a citizen, and if she did, that one isn't revoked by being away. If she was on a green card and stayed away from the country for a year or more, the USCIS may consider her green card abandoned and she will probably lose it unless she made arrangements prior to leaving.

She doesn't seem to be a citizen and she just jumped on a flight to Sweden without any preparations at all.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 21:53

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

Katt posted:

She doesn't seem to be a citizen and she just jumped on a flight to Sweden without any preparations at all.

Has she been living there illegally the whole time?

# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:02

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

Groda posted:

Has she been living there illegally the whole time?

I assume she could stay because she had a husband and children there but never bothered to become a full citizen.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:06

Ashcans: Jan 2, 2006; Let's do the space-time warp again!

You don't really have enough information to work out what the exact situation is going to be for her here. Based on what she's worried about, it sounds like she's a Permanent Resident and is worried that leaving will mean she has abandoned it. If she was a citizen it wouldn't matter, and if she hadn't kept up her status the one year doesn't matter because she would have been barred for ten years immediately.

In theory, by staying outside the US for more than six months she has compromised her permanent residence; the next time she tries to enter the US, she may be admitted but the officer would inform her that her residence is being revoked and she could be placed in removal proceedings.

In practice, sometimes people don't abide by the six month rule and coast for years before they get flagged and have it revoked; it's possible that she could re-enter without any problems, but that would be an officer error in her favor. But you'll certainly find anecdotes about people who have done this without a hitch.

What she should do is talk to an immigration lawyer about her situation and her goals. Does she want to return to the US to live? Then she needs to figure out how she can try to preserve her residence at this point - it would involve making an argument that she didn't intend to leave for so long and has been unable to return due to complicating factors. Does she want to live in Sweden and be able to visit her children regularly? Then she could also formally renounce her green card and simply enter as a visitor for short periods.

Also there would need to be clarity on what "got into drugs and alcohol" means. If she has arrests or convictions for drug offenses it will cause issues in any immigration work.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:46

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

Yes I don't have enough info. Just that she's really hung about that one year. She has no convictions. Also the ex-husband wants to be rid of her completely if he can help it.

She wants to return to the US and live there permanently but she has no prospects to make a living.

# ? Dec 4, 2019 22:53

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

Update: apparently she is a US citizen but she claims that if she changes her legal residence to Sweden and then spends a year in Sweden she might not be able to return to the US.

# ? Dec 6, 2019 19:29

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

It sound like immigration is her third or fourth biggest problem tbh

# ? Dec 6, 2019 19:32

joepinetree: Apr 5, 2012

Katt posted:

Update: apparently she is a US citizen but she claims that if she changes her legal residence to Sweden and then spends a year in Sweden she might not be able to return to the US.

That doesn't make any sense. If she is a US citizen, the only way she'd lose that citizenship is if she herself forfeited it or if there was some irregularity when she applied for it that made the US want to revoke it (i.e., she lied on her paperwork on something serious). As far as I know Sweden allows dual citizenship, so I don't know why she would not be able to return to the US if she is a citizen. Unless she has, I don't know, legal problems like a probation or something that doesn't allow her to move away from the US, which would mean arrest upon return, this makes absolutely no sense.

# ? Dec 6, 2019 19:48

Ashcans: Jan 2, 2006; Let's do the space-time warp again!

There is a really good chance that she was warned about leaving the US for too long/changing her residence when she was a green card holder and never absorbed/doesn't realize this doesn't affect you once you have citizenship.

# ? Dec 6, 2019 20:03

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

Her family suspects that she might be straight up lying in an attempt to not have to register with the Swedish social office for welfare benefits because the social office might make her do stuff.

# ? Dec 6, 2019 22:11

augias: Apr 7, 2009

Katt posted:

Her family suspects that she might be straight up lying in an attempt to not have to register with the Swedish social office for welfare benefits because the social office might make her do stuff.

This scandinavian person has been ameripoisoned. There is no hope

# ? Dec 7, 2019 01:12

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Permanent Residence is forfeited if you leave the country for a year or more with "intention of living abroad"

If you're a US citizen you have taxes to pay even living abroad, so either way she's probably got somethkng she needs to sort out.

# ? Dec 7, 2019 01:18

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

Update to update. Turns out she's not a citizen after all.

# ? Dec 7, 2019 14:26

Groda: Mar 17, 2005; Hair Elf

Katt posted:

Update to update. Turns out she's not a citizen after all.

Is there a criminal history involved? Definitely a red flag, not getting citizenship after all that time, since dual citizenship has been uncontrovertially allowed in both countries since 2001.

# ? Dec 7, 2019 14:57

Katt: Nov 14, 2017

Groda posted:

Is there a criminal history involved? Definitely a red flag, not getting citizenship after all that time, since dual citizenship has been uncontrovertially allowed in both countries since 2001.

If there was she wouldn't say. She's basically been a trophy wife for half her life. Maybe she just didn't have any initiative for it?

# ? Dec 7, 2019 15:23

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

So I made a thread waaaay back that was generally about discussing the broader issue of US illegal immigration and possible solutions that addressed current immoral U.S. policies, and it provoked some interesting discussion. I'll repost my OP and some interesting excerpts here for those without archives. I'm curious about others' thoughts on this and where things stand with the issue now, and what broader ideas for solutions anyone might have?

-Blackadder- posted:

I'm a liberal democrat, but I have to admit I am simply not very knowledgeable about the issue of Illegal Immigration. And it seems like I can't really find any kind of descent resources that will explain it in relatively simple terms. I can't even really tell where the two parties stand on the issue.

The Republicans seem to have this hilarious Mrs. Doubtfire thing going on where they're eating dinner with the ignorant racist hick part of their base in one part of the restaurant and the big business part of their base in another part and they have to keep running back and forth pretending to be all about "gettin those darkies off of american soil" while they're with the hicks and then ensuring that there will be "plenty of cheap labor" while they're with the big business guys.

The Democrats seem to waffle on the issue even more than they usually do. They see that these are just poor people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families but don't really think we should just open the flood gates.

Personally I pretty much agree with the Dems, from a moral standpoint I can't fault people for just trying improve their lot in life. But I still don't know the stats and figures regarding their effects on the country. No one can seem to provide a clear answer (or at least I haven't seen one yet). The weird thing is that I don't know where I should be on this issue. The only person who ever talks regularly about it is that racist shitbag Lou Dobbs and I don't trust a thing that loving guy says. I feel like I don't have enough information on the issue and the fact that the two parties are waffling back and forth isn't helping either. I always figured the best thing to do policy wise was first make legal immigration a realistic and viable option for people. Second, help out Mexico so it's not such a corrupt and terrible place to live. Third, go after the businesses that are hiring illegal immigrants, with a policy of extremely high fines and absolutely zero tolerance, thus eliminating their reason for coming here. It's much more humane and less despicable than rounding people up or building a giant loving wall. There are actually some rather humorous statistics in this regard that show that the Republicans are being MUCH friendlier to businesses that hire Illegal Immigrants than Democrats, which is kind of a funny kick in the balls to all the Republican-supporting, mexican-hating rednecks that think the GOP cares about any color other than green:

quote:
Washington Post posted:
Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

So anyway, what's the deal with this issue? It seems like a hot potato and a balancing act for both parties. What are the statistical realities of illegal immigration? Is it even a problem? Should we even worry about it at all? Is it a drag on the economy and does it disenfranchise other legal workers or is the effect negligible and not worth bothering about? From what I've been able to quickly google there are anywhere between half a million to 3 million illegal immigrants coming into the U.S. every year. What are the projections for how this will effect the U.S. say 25 or 50 years from now?

FilthyImp posted:

Here's a few morsels that will probably get mentioned pretty soon.

* The modern problem with Latin American immigration can likely be traced back to the US's creation of the Bracero Program in 1942. The Bracero plan was a guest worker program initially designed to provide workers for sugar beet harvests in Stockton, California, but was quickly expanded to cover farm labor throughout most of the U.S. (and even had a spin-off branch dedicated to railroad maintenance). Within three years of the program's launch, over 50,000 workers had been recruited for the agrilabor sector.

The Bracero Program ended in 1964, amidst allegations of human/workers rights violations. The U.S. has maintained that the program had served its purpose, and that it no longer required the workers it brought in. Part of the problem lay in the way workers were treated in regards to their wages. For instance, the U.S. would withhold a portion of their earnings if they remained in the country past their labor term. Successful re-entry into Mexico would ensure that portion's return (though that was often disputed). During the height of the program, it wasn't uncommon for rejected workers to be strongly suggested to jump the border by government officials.

In 1954, Eisenhower, concerned with a possible link between undocumented workers and corruption, tasked the US INS with deporting many of the illegal workers that had flourished under the Bracero program. Thus, Operation Wetback was born. This led to a harsh crackdown in areas with heavy Mexican/Latin American populations.

It's no small coincidence that the end of the Bracero program coincides with Cesar Chavez and the rise of the United Farm Worker's Union - same exploitative conditions, after all.

It's arguable that America fostered this "great land of opportunity" myth in the 40s-60s. That those workers either returned or remained in the country, began the trend of sending money back to relatives and family, which caused a local elevation of their standard of living, and enticed others to follow suit. Makes sense that other folks wanted to get in on the action, after all.

* One of the more popular Conservative arguments against widespread, unchecked immigration out there is Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, which argues that the nation will soon face a crisis of the self. He argues that enough latin american immigrants will cause a bifurcation of the national identity. He also cites several factors which make the Mexican individual patently un-american (Catholic vs Protestant value systems, "Tomorrow" expectations vs. Right Now Git'Er Done style action, allegiance to another country vs. US patriotism).

I think his arguments are nativist horseshit, but the reasoning behind them isn't too off from some folks' discourse. He also throws in a few sections against Radical Islam for added flavor!

ApeAgitator posted:

Handlebar Mustache posted:
The other side of this is that the workers that did the jobs as legal citizens saw their wages drop as people will do them for a lot less. Eventually, it becomes uneconomical to hire legal workers when all your competitors are hiring illegal immigrants to do it for a lot less money.
And the third side is that had the services been performed by legal workers, the price of the services would be much higher and been less attractive, encourging fewer people to take part and suppressing the economy that way. Imagine if Walmart had to hire goods only from America. You wouldn't see nearly as many people buying poo poo if tube socks cost .

This is a good topic, and I'll admit that some of my views and understanding are clouded from growing up in Southern California. From what I saw, illegal immigrants were not functionally distinguishable from legal immigrants. They both were hard workers and came from a desire to build a strong future for their families and the primary thing that separated them was their place in the queue.

Unfortunately, as members of a fringe society, they didn't have access to proper law enforcement and services and, as such, lived in a degree of poverty and crime that perpetuated itself. They couldn't progress to better jobs as they gained skills and move away from crime-ridden areas. They couldn't turn to law enforcement to deal with crime and so that was allowed to continue with few checks.

I've generally been a fan of more open immigration and in-country paths to naturalization. I would also work pretty hard to strengthen Mexico and South America's economic futures to narrow the opportunity gap. I think "Made in Mexico" is preferrable to "Made in China".

One thing I can suss from my grandparents (who are, I think, pretty centrist) is that there's a fair fear of America turning brown. I can understand the sentiment, with white people dominating the American demographic, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the "browning" of America (considering it went through a "whitening" already, with accompanying language change). Of course, the idea that America is in any way homogenous is kind of silly, considering our motto and history. But being challenged for dominance is got to get people's hair up.

Juosazg posted:

If US wants to stop Mexicans from immigrating the solutions are fairly simple: repeal NAFTA and either stop subsidizing US agro corporations or allow Mexico to protect their farmers with tariffs.

Most of Mexican immigrants are small-scale farmers no longer able to compete with state-subsidized American agricultural businesses. Since they can't earn enough to survive from farming they are forced off to join the large and unemployed labor pool. Their main decent economic opportunity remains to cross the border and work in US without legal documents.

More generally, US should allow Mexico to develop economically from a source of cheap labor to a strong industrialized competitor. I say "allow" because unlike fairly independent China, Mexico does not keep a large portion of the value that foreign direct capital investment produces. While China is strong enough to force foreign investors to keep a large portion of their profits in China (in the form of more develop technology and stronger infrastructure), a much larger portion of the profit from US investments in Mexico goes back to US investors and not to improving Mexican infrastructure (education, tech base, roads, etc.). To enrich Mexico and stop the immigration, US investors must accept making less cash from Mexico. You can safely assume that will not happen by the US initiative, so it all depends on Mexicans.

Speaking more in terms of morality, all borders should be opened because their main function is to maintain privilege for people who can cross them without personal risk by restricting mobility of everyone else. For example, capitalists can legally take advantage of the best labor conditions for themselves on either side of the border, but workers have to do the same thing illegally unless their are lucky to be born on the right side.

Munin posted:

As a quick swerve.

The reason why neither party is that comfortable talking about immigration is that each has its own anti-immigration wing. With the Republicans it is the nativists worried about american values being swamped under a tide of immigrants. With the Democrats you have various Unions upset and worried about immigrants driving down the wages of their members and taking away their jobs.

Balancing that is that most US citizens are immigrants or descended from immigrants. Immigrants from Latin America tend to have more conservative social values and are seen as an important voter group by Republicans.

That means that both parties have be very careful not to annoy any of those groups too badly...

# ? Sep 8, 2020 20:31

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

I think that "go after businesses that hire undocumented immigrants with high fines and zero tolerance" is a mistaken approach. It's not necessarily a terrible idea, and it might even be mildly effective if the fines are big enough. But while it clumsily attempts to attack the economic underpinnings for undocumented immigration, it doesn't really get to the true core of the issue. When immigration comes up in the political discourse, it's rare that people stop to seriously consider a very important question: why is it cheaper and more profitable for businesses to hire undocumented immigrants?

Sure, the obvious answer is "because you can pay them below minimum wage". But if you take a step back and think about it, minimum wage laws don't discriminate by migration status, so undocumented immigrants are theoretically entitled to the same minimum wage as legal workers. There's no law saying they don't have to be paid minimum wage, so why are they so widely underpaid? The answer to that cuts to the heart of immigration discourse in the US: it's because undocumented immigrants are reluctant to report abuses and illegal conditions to the authorities (or even complain about them to the employer) for fear that they'll be deported. So hawkish immigration discourse and harsh enforcement actually make it more attractive for businesses to hire undocumented workers, because a hardline ICE increases the workers' fear of the government and makes it easier for the companies to control and abuse them.

If you've ever felt like it was weird for the right's strongly pro-business outlook to coexist so smoothly with their ranting about underpaid foreigners stealing away jobs from citizens who'd be paid more, that's the knot that ties it all together. A scary, uncompromising ICE vastly increases the ability of businesses (and others) to exploit undocumented workers. Considering the impracticality of sealing off the border and the considerable economic incentives for both migrants and businesses, no amount of immigration enforcement is sufficient to stop illegal immigration. And if undocumented workers dare to assert their rights under US labor law, well, ICE is right there and ready to make an example of them.

https://twitter.com/Sensiablue/status/1159597925305147398
https://twitter.com/NYTNational/status/1200535172220882944

IMO, the most important thing that can be done about illegal immigration is to take away ICE's enforcement resources and give them to the Department of Labor instead, tasking labor inspectors to investigate employers' wage and safety practices. Eliminating the disparity in wages and working conditions between documented and undocumented migrants would substantially change the conversation.

# ? Sep 9, 2020 03:02

Ashcans: Jan 2, 2006; Let's do the space-time warp again!

I work in immigration and while it's been getting worse forever the last couple years (and this year in particular) have been an amazing garbage fire. The system was not designed for any modern application of business, and it sort of groans and limps along on the basis of a kind of gentleman's understanding on how stuff is supposed to work. That has been eroding and the current administration is using every option to gleefully tear it up, so we're regularly thrown into panic and disarray. There have been numerous changes jammed or overturned in courts, meaning that people may not have a day-to-day understanding of what is going on, even if they have been operating completely within the law.

As above, immigration lies at an intersection of a LOT of different groups and perspectives, which as effectively prevented anyone from opening it up and doing the kind of real renovation that is required even when one party holds enough of the government to theoretically do so. Instead we get flailing, piecemeal action that attacks or corrects single points that a lobby has managed to leverage hard enough without solving any of the real problems or any real reform of the system itself.

Main Paineframe is right, the main reason undocumented work is popular is because it provides leverage to companies to avoid their crimes. This actually applies beyond illegal immigration though; many professional workers are comparatively over the barrel with their employers because their presence in the US relies on their sponsor. Even if you're an educated white-collar worker, are you going to push back on working late, maybe not recording overtime? Are you going to refuse to come in for projects, or deal with scut work? If your wage doesn't rise year over year, you are far more restricted than a US worker. And when you get down to the guest worker program, the abuses between the documented and undocumented workers are pretty similar - and it's permitted essentially because enforcement is so bad and if any of them complain, they can be gone before the DOL gets around to hearing anything.

Honestly the whole thing is a giant mess, I have no idea how to fix it short of disbanding ICE/CBP/starting over, and I'm pretty much trying to figure out how to leave the industry because I can't cope with how screwed up it has gotten.

# ? Oct 8, 2020 23:09

augias: Apr 7, 2009

Ashcans posted:

I work in immigration and while it's been getting worse forever the last couple years (and this year in particular) have been an amazing garbage fire. The system was not designed for any modern application of business, and it sort of groans and limps along on the basis of a kind of gentleman's understanding on how stuff is supposed to work. That has been eroding and the current administration is using every option to gleefully tear it up, so we're regularly thrown into panic and disarray. There have been numerous changes jammed or overturned in courts, meaning that people may not have a day-to-day understanding of what is going on, even if they have been operating completely within the law.

As above, immigration lies at an intersection of a LOT of different groups and perspectives, which as effectively prevented anyone from opening it up and doing the kind of real renovation that is required even when one party holds enough of the government to theoretically do so. Instead we get flailing, piecemeal action that attacks or corrects single points that a lobby has managed to leverage hard enough without solving any of the real problems or any real reform of the system itself.

Main Paineframe is right, the main reason undocumented work is popular is because it provides leverage to companies to avoid their crimes. This actually applies beyond illegal immigration though; many professional workers are comparatively over the barrel with their employers because their presence in the US relies on their sponsor. Even if you're an educated white-collar worker, are you going to push back on working late, maybe not recording overtime? Are you going to refuse to come in for projects, or deal with scut work? If your wage doesn't rise year over year, you are far more restricted than a US worker. And when you get down to the guest worker program, the abuses between the documented and undocumented workers are pretty similar - and it's permitted essentially because enforcement is so bad and if any of them complain, they can be gone before the DOL gets around to hearing anything.

Honestly the whole thing is a giant mess, I have no idea how to fix it short of disbanding ICE/CBP/starting over, and I'm pretty much trying to figure out how to leave the industry because I can't cope with how screwed up it has gotten.

Hurry the gently caress up with my i-751 pendejo

# ? Oct 8, 2020 23:22

LLSix: Jan 20, 2010; The real power behind countless overlords

Ashcans posted:

Honestly the whole thing is a giant mess, I have no idea how to fix it short of disbanding ICE/CBP/starting over, and I'm pretty much trying to figure out how to leave the industry because I can't cope with how screwed up it has gotten.

Dang. Sorry to hear that. Your posts have been very informative and it sounds like you've helped bring a lot of people in over the years. Can't blame you for needing a break. The last 4 years have been a steadily worsening disaster.

Good luck finding a new career that you like better.

# ? Oct 8, 2020 23:38

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

New President. Slightly less lovely situation on the border. ICE finally in deep poo poo. And goons can't stop debating internment camp pedantry.

By order of IK Majorian, I revive this thread.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 05:43

J.A.B.C.: Jul 2, 2007; There's no need to rush to be an adult.

That which is terrible policy may eternal lie

And over strange presidencies even ICE may die.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 09:51

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

So can we say 'concentration' camps in here or are we still required to pretend 'internment camp' is an actual legal different term and not literally just a synonym for concentration camp.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 14:41

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

sexpig by night posted:

So can we say 'concentration' camps in here or are we still required to pretend 'internment camp' is an actual legal different term and not literally just a synonym for concentration camp.

it's not just a synonym, it's a euphemism.it's a kindler, gentler word used to make people feel better about what the US government is doing.

Grouchio posted:

New President. Slightly less lovely situation on the border. ICE finally in deep poo poo. And goons can't stop debating internment camp pedantry.

By order of IK Majorian, I revive this thread.

using the right term for concentration camps is important. we want people to realize the gravity of what the US is doing at the border

# ? Mar 17, 2021 14:43

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Also what the gently caress is this 'ICE is in deep poo poo' framing? Biden's anti abolishing ICE and if it's about the camps then HHS has always been the government liaison of them and outsourcing them to private contracts just like they're doing now. ICE has faced no consequences under Biden.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 14:48

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Also feels like a bad omen when you tell your camp guards they can't talk

https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1372136896504201217

That, combined with the whole 'not letting lawyers and journalists in' is pretty loving grim!

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:01

Insanite: Aug 30, 2005

Regardless of how you feel about guards _possibly_ just mad that it's harder to do things like this: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/border-patrol-biden-crisis-dhs-kevin-mccarthy-republicans-insiders-b1818116.html

This part of the NBC article remains bad:

quote:

Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Homeland Security have not offered any media tours of the newly opened processing facility in Donna, Texas, which is reported to be over capacity with unaccompanied migrant children, a DHS official said.

Some of the restrictions, particularly for in-person tours, are due to Covid-19 precautions, said one of the current officials. But, as the current official said, while the Trump administration allowed some border ride-alongs for journalists during the pandemic, there has been "not a single one since January 20," the day President Joe Biden was inaugurated.

Want to show that you're actually doing a better job than Trump? Let people report on it.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:23

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

yea it feels like even if the 'well Border Patrol is fascist and wants to make Biden look bad by lying to Fox' poo poo is right the way to fight that would be, ya know, letting journalists and lawyers into the camp to report on what's going on.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:25

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

Does any of this sound credible?
https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1371921671750303747

People are rationalizing the media blackout with wanting to stop an unruly ICE from further undermining these new policies:
https://twitter.com/BuddJenn/status/1371965457704525828

But on the other hand, wouldn't you want to use the media to expose problems with an agency you're trying to put to heel? "They can manipulate the media", okay, but the President can send the head of DHS over there with media to take a look at things. What are they gonna do, deport him, like he's continuing to have single adults and families?

e:fb

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:26

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

It sounds to me like it's an awfully convenient excuse as to why Joe Biden is mishandling the border situation. It's amazing how it's always someone else's fault when the democrats fail.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:33

Catgirl Al Capone: Dec 15, 2007

I think at best they're stalling for time hoping that they can clean the camps up just well and long enough to weather a media inspection before going back to business as usual. But that's just a theory.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:39

-Blackadder-: Jan 2, 2007; Game....Blouses.

That ex-agent article is crazy, I wouldn't be surprised if it's all true. The organizational culture is completely toxic, they need to bring in new management and start quietly firing and replacing existing personnel.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:45

Insanite: Aug 30, 2005

Investigating and prosecuting existing personnel would also be nice.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 01:09

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Yea has Biden done ANYTHING about the, at the very least, multiple reports of rape and abuse from these camps when the Bad Man (tm) was running them? Like, that feels like a major part of making our concentration camps more woke and good.

# ? Mar 17, 2021 15:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Immigration Policy Megathread

«‹›36 »