|
computer parts posted:How about instead of deporting people and then fixing the immigration system you fix the immigration system and then work with people to actually be legally in the country? You shouldn't do it for the same reason we shouldn't tell companies "Every 5 years we will have a tax evasion amnesty where you can settle with the government for 10% of what you owe". evilweasel posted:I consider "you have a criminal record a mile long" more an exception for a new law to handle than a justification for our whole dumb system. The time period where immigration was essentially a free-for-all was also when we had no income taxes and no social security, so if that's on the table 
on the left fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jul 17, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
on the left posted:You shouldn't do it for the same reason we shouldn't tell companies "Every 5 years we will have a tax evasion amnesty where you can settle with the government for 10% of what you owe". How about we fix the immigration system to be more fair, and spouses have to wait the same length as any other immigrant? Or is that suddenly unfair and too demanding?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:You shouldn't do it for the same reason we shouldn't tell companies "Every 5 years we will have a tax evasion amnesty where you can settle with the government for 10% of what you owe". That they owe us billions of dollars? They even have billions of dollars?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:You shouldn't do it for the same reason we shouldn't tell companies "Every 5 years we will have a tax evasion amnesty where you can settle with the government for 10% of what you owe". It's not hard or cruel to make companies pay all their back taxes. It absolutely is heartless to uproot people from the lives and homes they've built here (while contributing taxes) and send them back to countries they might not even have grown up in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Agreed, each illegal immigrant who owes the united states $100k or more will be deported.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:It's not hard or cruel to make companies pay all their back taxes. It absolutely is heartless to uproot people from the lives and homes they've built here (while contributing taxes) and send them back to countries they might not even have grown up in. If there were even a snowball's chance that we would actually start enforcing the immigration laws, this would be a popular plan. Unfortunately people have caught on that amnesty is a never-ending thing once you start. The people pushing for amnesty have no plans to prevent the need for future amnesties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
on the left posted:If there were even a snowball's chance that we would actually start enforcing the immigration laws, this would be a popular plan. Unfortunately people have caught on that amnesty is a never-ending thing once you start. The people pushing for amnesty have no plans to prevent the need for future amnesties. What plan? All I said was that your analogy doesn't make sense because people aren't just numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
on the left posted:If there were even a snowball's chance that we would actually start enforcing the immigration laws, this would be a popular plan. Unfortunately people have caught on that amnesty is a never-ending thing once you start. The people pushing for amnesty have no plans to prevent the need for future amnesties. How much tax revenue would we lose? I think if you're here for five years illegally you stay is a perfectly fine approach to future amnesties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:How much tax revenue would we lose? I think if you're here for five years illegally you stay is a perfectly fine approach to future amnesties. 5 years is fine if we actively try to prevent people from being able to successfully stay in the country that long by enforcing the laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
It IS against the law to bar undocumented minors from equal access to, say, a free public education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe The 14th amendment doesn't just apply to citizens--it applies to everyone physically present in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The 14th amendment doesn't just apply to citizens--it applies to everyone physically present in the US. People don't want to kick them out of school though, they want to remove them physically from the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
What's wrong with on the left's opinion is that he's pretty blatantly prejudiced against undocumented citizens. He'll defend the idea that the people he loves are good people who deserve to live here, which isn't a bad thing. But when he's asked about other people, who's only difference is how they got here, he'll make them out to be criminals allowed to run wild by unenforced laws. It's hypocritical at best, and the fact that's he is so willing to avoid speaking about immigrants in the context of human beings, rather than numbers, speaks a lot about his own moral character.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How about we fix the immigration system to be more fair, and spouses have to wait the same length as any other immigrant? Or is that suddenly unfair and too demanding? This sounds pretty reasonable, and might also provide enough breathing room that the system doesn't become overwhelmed again, and then revisions can be taken from there. Whatever the criticism of it being though, I agree that maybe they don't have to exist as is anyways if people are going to follow the jobs regardless, it's fine for things and money and corporations who are people, but not people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:What's wrong with on the left's opinion is that he's pretty blatantly prejudiced against undocumented citizens. He'll defend the idea that the people he loves are good people who deserve to live here, which isn't a bad thing. But when he's asked about other people, who's only difference is how they got here, he'll make them out to be criminals allowed to run wild by unenforced laws. Part of my family are illegal immigrants to the US, and they really should be deported. That the US hasn't done so is a mark against the immigration enforcement system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
on the left posted:Part of my family are illegal immigrants to the US, and they really should be deported. That the US hasn't done so is a mark against the immigration enforcement system. Let's deport their employers instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
on the left posted:Part of my family are illegal immigrants to the US, and they really should be deported. That the US hasn't done so is a mark against the immigration enforcement system. Do you mean the rapists or people you actually care about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
on the left posted:Part of my family are illegal immigrants to the US, and they really should be deported. That the US hasn't done so is a mark against the immigration enforcement system. Sorry about the bad relationship with your family, still doesn't justify stereotyping entire groups of people or asking to deport people from the lives they've made already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
It's a good thing the Native American tribes couldn't deport the early settlers. America might not even exist!
James The 1st fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Let's deport their employers instead. It would be great if we could deport white drug users to Latin America. Cercadelmar posted:Sorry about the bad relationship with your family, still doesn't justify stereotyping entire groups of people or asking to deport people from the lives they've made already. We don't even need to deport most people, just effectively enforce the laws we have already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
on the left posted:That's the point, we are trying to detect them and deport them. Of course, it is stupid that we set up checkpoints when we could just make it impossible to get a job or enroll in school as an illegal immigrant, which would wipe out the problem neatly. on the left posted:We don't even need to deport most people, just effectively enforce the laws we have already. "We don't need to deport most people, just all of them."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:"We don't need to deport most people, just all of them." It's not deportation if we make illegal immigration financially unviable. Furthermore, employers who break labor laws are a good target for enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
on the left posted:That's the point, we are trying to detect them and deport them. Of course, it is stupid that we set up checkpoints when we could just make it impossible to get a job or enroll in school as an illegal immigrant, which would wipe out the problem neatly. on the left posted:It's not deportation if we make illegal immigration financially unviable. Furthermore, employers who break labor laws are a good target for enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
There's an awful lot of daylight between our current "wait in line forever" immigration policies and no borders at all. I don't think most people here would object to making immigration conditional on things like passing criminal/terrorism background checks or screening for communicable diseases and up-to-date vaccinations. But that doesn't require a waiting period of years and years, or arbitrary country-of-origin quotas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
on the left posted:The time period where immigration was essentially a free-for-all was also when we had no income taxes and no social security, so if that's on the table
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:Economically unviable in this case implies denying them education and starving them out. Certainly one way to "wipe out the problem neatly". I don't recommend denying them education, I just recommend that the education system check social security numbers and send any weird mismatches of name and claimed social security to the department of homeland security, who can pay a visit to their home and helpfully resolve the problem. And lol at enforcing labor laws as "starving people out". Elotana posted:Do you think immigrants don't contribute to social security? poo poo a mass immigration would probably be one of the few ways of dealing with the upcoming boomer-bomb without a tax hike or a benefit cut. Illegal immigrants are already putting billions into the system now, because only a few of them are actually entirely cash-under-the-table deals, most get paid under fake SSNs or stolen identities and get their FICA withheld just like everyone else. Of course they contribute to social security, but since the jobs they get are almost universally lowly paid, it's not going to help much at all in the short term, and backfire spectacularly in the long-run when we have to pay out social security to them, which will probably happen. Elotana posted:There's an awful lot of daylight between our current "wait in line forever" immigration policies and no borders at all. I don't think most people here would object to making immigration conditional on things like passing criminal/terrorism background checks or screening for communicable diseases and up-to-date vaccinations. But that doesn't require a waiting period of years and years, or arbitrary country-of-origin quotas. I've always regretted that the US didn't have favelas and shantytowns in its major metropolitan areas. We could finally have the kind of inequality that would make Brazil say "At least we aren't America unequal" on the left fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
on the left posted:Furthermore, employers who break labor laws are a good target for enforcement. If someone wanted to seriously crack down on illegal immigration, the best method would be to aggressively prosecute companies that employ illegal immigrants. This would drive demand down. As evidence that this would work, you need only look at at figures from the recent financial crisis, immigration was way down during the depths of the crisis. In addition, for those addicted to the "illegal immigrants are bad because they're breaking the law" argument, consider that a company that employs 50 immigrants is 50 times the criminal of any individual immigrant and should therefore be targeted more aggressively. Now, taking these two facts, let me ask you a question: Why is there no particular effort made to prosecute companies with illegal hiring practices? Why aren't there cries from the usual suspects to take down these illegal companies? The answer is obvious. Having an underclass is good for business. So, on one side we have the Democrats, who are generally pro-immigration for whatever reason (humanitarian or business pressure) and on the other side we have the Republicans, who are ostensibly anti-immigration, but in fact are really interested in maintaining the underclass. So my final question for you: why are you supporting people who are lying to you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:I'm going to address this point in a little depth. Your question doesn't make any sense. Who am I supporting, and what exactly is the statement that is a lie? Also, when it comes to selective enforcement of immigration laws, it's fair to place 100% of the blame on the executive branch, which is being run by Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
on the left posted:Your question doesn't make any sense. Who am I supporting, and what exactly is the statement that is a lie? I'm wondering, how do you feel about the DREAM act? "The original 2001 version would have created a path to legal status — effectively a green card — for undocumented people age 21 and under who had graduated from high school and resided in the U.S. for five years."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:I'm wondering, how do you feel about the DREAM act? He's already said "great but we should be using Homeland Security to deport them before they stay here for five years". on the left posted:5 years is fine if we actively try to prevent people from being able to successfully stay in the country that long by enforcing the laws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:I'm wondering, how do you feel about the DREAM act? I'm fine with things like that as long as other immigrant classes are treated better. If we are going to hand out green cards, why not also hand out green cards to graduates of US universities and H1B holders who happen to be in the country at the time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
on the left posted:I'm fine with things like that as long as other immigrant classes are treated better. If we are going to hand out green cards, why not also hand out green cards to graduates of US universities and H1B holders who happen to be in the country at the time? Both of those are perfectly reasonable additions to immigration reform. The fact that the the system is failing to accommodate skilled labor into the US just shows that it's inherently flawed and doesn't meet current demands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
on the left posted:Of course they contribute to social security, but since the jobs they get are almost universally lowly paid, it's not going to help much at all in the short term, and backfire spectacularly in the long-run when we have to pay out social security to them, which will probably happen. on the left posted:I've always regretted that the US didn't have favelas and shantytowns in its major metropolitan areas. We could finally have the kind of inequality that would make Brazil say "At least we aren't America unequal"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
It's impossible not to have immigration laws for the same reason that communism doesn't work: people are too selfish, and people with lots of things will spend time and energy to prevent other people with no things from taking their things. People in rich countries have lots of things. People in poor countries who want to immigrate to rich countries have few things. Ergo, people in rich countries will ensure that people from poor countries are more or less kept out because the rich are afraid of the poor taking their things. And rich and poor are relative of course. So a fast food worker in Iowa is still rich relative to a 15 year old from Honduras, and thus will behave accordingly. Of course you can argue whether this is or isn't "right." But it's reality and it won't change anytime soon. Maybe after global population stabilizes and we move towards a post-scarcity economy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Elotana posted:There's an awful lot of daylight between our current "wait in line forever" immigration policies and no borders at all. I don't think most people here would object to making immigration conditional on things like passing criminal/terrorism background checks or screening for communicable diseases and up-to-date vaccinations. But that doesn't require a waiting period of years and years, or arbitrary country-of-origin quotas. + Illegal immigration depresses low-skilled wages and damages the labor market + Illegal immigration keeps many American states functioning by providing necessary low-skilled labor + Immigration controls are the logical consequence of national borders In general, it seems to me that if you had no borders at all, and allowed wave after wave of Third World poor into the U.S., the U.S. would become a much more unequal society than it is now. On the left, there's concern about global inequality between the developed world and the rest of the world, so the left is inclined towards unrestricted immigration. But the result would be drastically increasing the relative inequality between Americans, and that will worsen many social and economic problems inside the country. At the same time, the U.S. needs low-skilled immigrants, and lots of them. What do we do? I don't know really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:I don't think he had much of a choice. They've been setting up border patrol checkpoints north of the RGV lately, which limits the options on how to leave here. Like Vargas said, undocumented people are pretty much trapped. once you're in the united states, immigration checkpoints not on the border are constitutionally-questionable and people are under no obligation to answer their questions nor consent to a search. this is fact and you can find myriad DHS (department of homeland security) refusal videos on youtube showing motorists giving the finger to these law-breaking douchebags, who later give up and send them on their way. these criminals rely on people's ignorance and fear of authority to operate and if more people flex their rights we won't need to abide these fear-mongering weaponized freaks wasting everybody's time. gently caress those guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
this is the one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Lief posted:once you're in the united states, immigration checkpoints not on the border are constitutionally-questionable and people are under no obligation to answer their questions nor consent to a search. this is fact and you can find myriad DHS (department of homeland security) refusal videos on youtube showing motorists giving the finger to these law-breaking douchebags, who later give up and send them on their way. these criminals rely on people's ignorance and fear of authority to operate and if more people flex their rights we won't need to abide these fear-mongering weaponized freaks wasting everybody's time. gently caress those guys. I absolutely agree with you, it's a shame that most people from here, undocumented or otherwise, tend to assume that they have less rights than they really do. There should be more awareness of what everyone's rights are regarding searches like this. Edit: looked this up, seems it doesn't apply to undocumented people Immigrant Legal Resource Center posted:E. At the Border -Your rights at the border are different. The “border’” includes not only the line between the U.S. and Mexico or Canada, but also airports and areas close to the border, for example, the border checkpoint near San Clemente, California. In these border places, you have to prove that you have legal permission to be in the U.S. or the Immigration Service can detain you to ask more questions. They can also search you or your bags without a search warrant. Remember that you always have the right to remain silent. Cercadelmar fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:I absolutely agree with you, it's a shame that most people from here, undocumented or otherwise, tend to assume that they have less rights than they really do. There should be more awareness of what everyone's rights are regarding searches like this. http://www.texasobserver.org/border-patrol-takes-no-for-an-answer-at-internal-checkpoints/ quote:Border Patrol Takes ‘No’ for an Answer at Internal Checkpoints Remember the "reasonable distance" authority is given by Congress and isn't an opinion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Martinez-Fuerte quote:The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.[1] horribleslob fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
on the left posted:Your question doesn't make any sense. Who am I supporting, and what exactly is the statement that is a lie? The laws we have now are largely similar to the laws we've had for the last decade. They weren't enforced by Bush either. By focusing all your attention on the immigrants rather than the companies that employ them, you're buying into the right-wing class warfare argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:Every time I deal with the USCIS I fly everything across a trusted immigration law firm or two, even for "simple" matters. One wrong answer or something done out of procedure can get everything undone or worse get you subject to a multi-year ban from the US... I've seen a simple mistake spiral way out of control. Speaking of Scandinavian welfare states and their 'strict' immigration policies, I'm always amazed at how draconian the US system is allowed to be. Over here it is very simple for you to get a residence permit if you qualify for it and you will never need a lawyer or an expert to help you out with it. Arriving and only then applying is perfectly kosher. If you are denied, you can stay in the country while your appeal is processed and the government hires you a lawyer and covers all the charges even if the appeal is turned down. You only get an entry ban if you outright provide falsified documents or commit crimes during your stay. I mean, yes, it's still regulated immigration, but it has nothing on what I've read of the US system. Apparently you can get deported if you fail to provide change of address to the USCIS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 11:22
|
|
