|
wateroverfire posted:It depends the country and what you're trying to do. You can get to Chile from a lot of places in Latin America with an ID card and no passport. But if you're coming to settle or work it's a different story (try coming from Peru or Colombia). Yep, chileans are doggedly racist to their colombian and peruvian brethren. Chilean gov also doesn't have an ICE equivalent hunting and deporting people because of petty bureaucratic irregularities, to my knowledge. Again, am willing to learn if this is not the case.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
augias posted:Yep, chileans are doggedly racist to their colombian and peruvian brethren. Chilean gov also doesn't have an ICE equivalent hunting and deporting people because of petty bureaucratic irregularities, to my knowledge. Again, am willing to learn if this is not the case. AFAIK that would be way too much effort so we are just content to catch them when it comes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Many countries don't have a special ICE type of force because regular cops will ask you for ID at a traffic check (or in some cases, just while walking on the street while looking funny/brown) or for government service, and you can't just get one based on an electric bill or what have you. There's a special "foreigner police" which mostly just handles administration, but either they or maybe customs police do randomly pull over coaches even in the middle of the country and check everyone's papers. They also do raids on some employers likely to have illegals and deport everyone. As far as I can tell, and IANAL, you rear end gets sent back unless you can prove that this will cause significant harm by e.g. separation of a family or you're from a literal war zone. I couldn't find any hard stats but one online grocery store had like 80 people deported based on one check.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
So I came across this discussion by Mark Blyth today. He normally talks about economics but this time he touched on immigration quite a bit (it starts around the 30m mark but the whole thing is worth listening to). I really like this because he actually manages to make a good case for immigration while at the same time explaining why it drives people to the right wing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqGITb0W4A&t=18s TLDW: Immigrants are good because white birthrates are going down and they fill the economic gaps by paying debts and driving growth. However on the ground it doesn't feel this way because all an individual in a poor area will see is a bunch of people from very different cultures coming in, displacing them, and competing for already scarce resources. Meanwhile the center left/right, which has become completely out of touch with the lives of the non-rich, is unable to make an effective counter argument that speaks to peoples lived experiences and as a result people like Trump (and Bernie) win because he's at least are willing to acknowledge that a problem exist and offer a plausible sounding path forward (remove immigrants and end globalization which will increase local competition and drive up wages). It's a bad path because, again, with lowered birthrates we need immigrants economically but it's a path all the same. In this sense the solution to anti-immigrant sentiment lies in providing people a better solution to their economic anxieties. Mark recommends subsidized college, single-payer healthcare, and free childcare services since those have been the areas where costs have gone up the most over the past several decades along with corporate reform to break up monopolies and discourage short-term thinking. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Feb 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 07:33
|
|
|
A bunch of problems with that. If we accept the premise that the proper purpose of immigration policy is to replace falling fertility rates, it either requires accepting indefinite population growth, aka gently caress The Environment, or for the government to set a population target, which is going to sell like a snow cone in winter on both the left and the right. The other issues I can see are that a reasonable population target would, due to contracting labor needs, probably be fewer people than we have now, and despite sub replacement fertility, our population continues to grow due to inertia. Also, the best way to manage an immigration policy meant to shore up the tax base would be a merit based system and elimination of jus soli citizenship, which is not what most advocates of more lax immigration policies want. This would kind of gently caress with the narrative that immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans don't want to do (which really means jobs that owners aren't willing to pay Americans enough to do.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:despite sub replacement fertility, our population continues to grow due to inertia. what? Other than birth and immigration where are you saying people are coming from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:what? Other than birth and immigration where are you saying people are coming from? Depending on the shape of the demographic pyramid, it can take a bit before sub-2.whatever fertility to lead to a decrease in population. Calling it replacement rate in this sense is the technically correct terminology but kind of confusing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:what? Other than birth and immigration where are you saying people are coming from? Now, this can cause a demographic problem where the young, healthy population is too small to effectively take care of the older population. Immigration can help with this, but if that is the concern, it makes the most sense to switch to a merit based system that tries to let in young medical professionals and immigrants who are most likely to contribute the greatest amount to the tax base, in order to provide sufficient government revenue to pay for expensive social services for the elderly, sick, and retired before they join that cohort themselves. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The other issues I can see are that a reasonable population target would, due to contracting labor needs, probably be fewer people than we have now, and despite sub replacement fertility, our population continues to grow due to inertia. Also, the best way to manage an immigration policy meant to shore up the tax base would be a merit based system and elimination of jus soli citizenship, which is not what most advocates of more lax immigration policies want. This would kind of gently caress with the narrative that immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans don't want to do (which really means jobs that owners aren't willing to pay Americans enough to do.) The only moral immigration policy is to let in as many nonwhite people as possible so people like you end up fleeing to a remote hamlet in Idaho etc. so you can live out your white american bastion fantasies somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:TLDW: Immigrants are good because white birthrates are going down and they fill the economic gaps by paying debts and driving growth. So in simple economic terms I don't think Blyth is wrong. But conceptualizing immigration policy like this is deeply unethical to me, because it accepts the framing that immigrants should only be accepted insofar as they are useful to us, and if they stopped being useful to us, it would be acceptable to shut out immigrants and support closed borders policies. This is the entire problem with capitalism, and dehumanizing people to simplify them to their value to the economic system. People should be valued as people, not relative to how they fit into the economic system. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:The only moral immigration policy is to let in as many nonwhite people as possible so people like you end up fleeing to a remote hamlet in Idaho etc. so you can live out your white american bastion fantasies somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IDK why you can't figure out that this isn't a race thing for me. Because you are a literal nazi????
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
I am not in fact a Nazi. Lightning Knight posted:But conceptualizing immigration policy like this is deeply unethical to me, because it accepts the framing that immigrants should only be accepted insofar as they are useful to us, and if they stopped being useful to us, it would be acceptable to shut out immigrants and support closed borders policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
blah blah blah go find a cop to defend you rear end in a top hat. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
I'm not racist guys it's just that all the countries with white people happen to be good and all the ones with colored people are shitholes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/deporting-criminal-immigrants-is-both-unwise-and-immoral https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/can-we-have-humane-immigration-policy https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/what-would-humane-immigration-policy-actually-look-like Some good, quality writing on what left-wing immigration policy could or ought to look like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
What's best for our society is eonomically productive immigrants, but also their support structures around them including extended family members. If we're going to integrate people into our communities and into our society, it's going to work a gently caress of a lot better when they have a stable and comfortable family life, with support systems in place, rather than hoping a bunch of single people with strong connections to another country decide that they don't like their family anymore and want to become fully American.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What's best for our society is eonomically productive immigrants, but also their support structures around them including extended family members.  That's not what they hope for...
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I am not in fact a Nazi. So the government shouldn't serve the interests of capital, but it shouldn't serve people outside the nation, none of that socialist internationalism. A third way, perhaps. A third way that benefits nationals, workers, etc. Like a national socialist workers government VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
For those lurkers reading this, Dead Reckoning has a history of advocating for anti-immigration policies, and has even expressed support for getting rid of the 14th amendment because of the SCOTUS case law listed in the OP stops policies that would make things even harder for undocumented immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
I'd be interested in learning more about immigration policy and enforcement during the Obama years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
here are some articles and poo poo https://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/491965912/5-things-to-know-about-obamas-enforcement-of-immigration-laws http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/458/ https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not It seems like Obama's immigration legacy is complex, politically loaded, and difficult to talk about, especially in the wake of Trump. I wonder if it might be possible to get a more complete picture than the one I have now, which is "Obama inherited a massive apparatus from Bush, and oversaw a change that resulted in more deportations at the border and less in the interior of the country, as well as more deportations of Central Americans and less of Mexicans. Many of the Central Americans were asylum seekers, and their deportations were essentially death sentences." Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:But that's not what this is about. America has a long history of blaming immigrant populations for the social ills of the day. Ben Franklin raged against German immigrants, and Alexander Hamilton supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which changed the waiting period for citizenship from 5 years to 14 years. i never get tired of people calling hamilton an "immigrant" and equating him to the immigrants of the modern day because of that god drat musical despite st. croix being an apartheid state at the time
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:But conceptualizing immigration policy like this is deeply unethical to me, because it accepts the framing that immigrants should only be accepted insofar as they are useful to us, and if they stopped being useful to us, it would be acceptable to shut out immigrants and support closed borders policies. You can value people as people and also acknowledge they have virtues or faults in a particular context, and we (even you!) do that all the time. If you were choosing a roommate you wouldn't think twice about vetting them to make sure they were a good fit and that they could actually pay their share, and you wouldn't think twice about turning down anyone you didn't think would come through. Immigration is the same decision on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You can value people as people and also acknowledge they have virtues or faults in a particular context, and we (even you!) do that all the time. That seems like imagining a national economy like a household economy: useful as a temporary metaphor but critically lacking. Immigration policy for voters is more like being a tenant in a hotel trying to get management to change policies regarding future tenants. If you still want to use a dumb analogy, that is. Polyseme fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 13:32
|
|
|
Polyseme posted:That seems like imagining a national economy like a household economy: useful as a temporary metaphor but critically lacking. Immigration policy for voters is more like being a tenant in a hotel trying to get management to change policies regarding future tenants. Tenants in a hotel do no actual work to help maintain or run the hotel, have no obligations beyond not wrecking their rooms, and expect to be waited on by people whose job it is to make them comfortable while they gently caress off and do whatever. They're like children except they pay money. If you view the national economy like a hotel that says a lot about you but not much that's useful about immigration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Tenants in a hotel do no actual work to help maintain or run the hotel, have no obligations beyond not wrecking their rooms, and expect to be waited on by people whose job it is to make them comfortable while they gently caress off and do whatever. They're like children except they pay money. If you view the national economy like a hotel that says a lot about you but not much that's useful about immigration. The economy us nothing like a hotel. I'm saying that immigration is closer to being a hotel tenant than your analogue which makes about as much sense as comparing the economy to a household. That is, it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Incidentally, this is why focusing on raising the standard of living in developing countries in order to curb fertility as a means to address global warming won't work. You've been taken to task on the rest of your nonsense but I can't let this slide unchallenged in case somebody thinks you may actually be right about this if nothing else. Improved standard of living includes improved access to healthcare including birth control and education for girls, which are the two biggest drivers of decrease in population growth rate. If we don't improve standards of living in developing and least developed economies we can look forward to a population that continues to increase geometrically with all the resource problems that would entail, instead of leveling off at (best case scenario) nine or ten billion. Unless you're rooting for Malthus, in which case gently caress you you monster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Polyseme posted:The economy us nothing like a hotel. I'm saying that immigration is closer to being a hotel tenant than your analogue which makes about as much sense as comparing the economy to a household. That is, it doesn't. I'll be honest, I don't understand what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'll be honest, I don't understand what you're saying. National immigration policy is not "choosing a roommate" writ large. That assumes that it's the tenants choosing, instead of management setting broad policy. I'm just saying it's a dumb analogy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, the best way to manage an immigration policy meant to shore up the tax base would be a merit based system and elimination of jus soli citizenship, which is not what most advocates of more lax immigration policies want. This would kind of gently caress with the narrative that immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans don't want to do (which really means jobs that owners aren't willing to pay Americans enough to do.) In the US, birthright citizenship is embedded in the same Constitutional amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. The other aspects of that amendment and the amount of caselaw that is dependent on this amendment are best saved for another thread. In any event, especially given the political climate in the US right now, I do not trust a change from birthright citizenship without completely screwing something up or furthering some massively racist agenda. A merit-based system would be able to address the tax base question without needing to eliminate birthright citizenship and I don't see how getting rid of birthright citizenship somehow results in more fiscal responsibility. If anything, it broadens the tax base by having more people with more set civic duties contributing to this country's economy. Instant Sunrise posted:For those lurkers reading this, Dead Reckoning has a history of advocating for anti-immigration policies, and has even expressed support for getting rid of the 14th amendment because of the SCOTUS case law listed in the OP stops policies that would make things even harder for undocumented immigrants. Oh. Well, I'm too lazy to erase my response now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Polyseme posted:National immigration policy is not "choosing a roommate" writ large. That assumes that it's the tenants choosing, instead of management setting broad policy. I'm just saying it's a dumb analogy. I think you missed the point of the roommate analogy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Zas posted:here are some articles and poo poo The most positive reading Obama's legacy is that he sincerely wanted to help the DREAMers, and made the miscalculation that if he was super tough on other forms of undocumented immigration he would buy enough goodwill to pass the dream act. First, to correct some of the things you've said: While deportations in the interior eventually go down, peak deportations from the interior happens during the last year of Bush and first Obama years:  And deportations at the border aren't just a statistical issue. If you have been deported at any point in your life, coming into the US legally becomes incredibly difficult: you face a 3 year bar from applying to anything (10 if you were in the US for longer than 1 year undocumented), you can be prosecuted if you are ever caught in the US undocumented again, etc. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602272/removals-returns-and-deportations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration And Obama didn't just inherit a massive apparatus. He greatly expanded it as well. So, for example, the Secure Communities (S-Comm) program establishes cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials, and allows federal immigration officials to ask local law enforcement to hold undocumented immigrants. It is essentially why "sanctuary cities" became a thing. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-deportation-machine-obama-built-for-president-trump/ At the end of the Bush presidency only a handful of jurisdictions had entered the S-Comm program, in no small part because local jurisdictions had to sign a memorandum of understanding to participate. Starting in 2011, Obama's DOJ said that local jurisdictions had to comply with S-Comm regardless of any agreements, and so by 2014 S-Comm was present around the entire country: http://www.thenyic.org/DOA_terminates_SComm_MOAs Immigration activists were of course pissed about this, so in 2014 Obama responded by ending S-Comm and replacing it with the Priority Enforcement Program, which wasn't as explicitly draconian as S-Comm, but was vague enough that it could be as draconian as S-Comm (Trump has since then reverted the whole thing back to S-Comm) https://www.aclu.org/letter/letter-dhs-regarding-implementation-ices-new-priority-enforcement-program-pep Of course, a lot of this was pre-DACA. Before DACA, Obama tried to beef up the deportation apparatus to try to buy good will from Republicans to get the DREAM act passed. After DACA, Obama decided to crack down on other minors to show that DACA wasn't a slippery slope towards full open borders. So he set up things like paying Mexico a boatload of money to stop migrants from Central America who are moving north to cross the border: https://nacla.org/news/2016/02/19/secure-borders-now-protect-people-later And in particular Obama decided to crack down on undocumented minors who came to the US after DACA, even if they still had pending asylum cases https://www.splcenter.org/20160128/families-fear-atlanta-immigration-raids This is also where a bit of democratic drama comes in. In the ramp up to her campaign, Clinton seemed to be trying to position herself to the right of Obama. http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-immigration-children-daca-661952 Whether Obama's ramp up of raids on undocumented minors from central America was in response to criticism from Clinton, we will never know, but until Bernie forced the democratic party to the left the intra-democratic debate seemed to be centered pretty much on how tough to be on recent arrivals of minors from Central America I think that as a whole, the most positive reading of all these actions with regards to Obama is that he really thought that moving right on immigration would buy him the leeway to protect DREAMers (first by beefing up the immigration apparatus, later by cracking down on non-DACA minors). Which I think that besides being a misreading of the conservative movement, also helped entrench this narrative of the "good" undocumented immigrant versus the "bad" undocumented immigrant. Which is why today we talk so much about DREAMers but not much else, which leads many dreamers to protest democrats as well. It is super common for DREAMers to have siblings who entered the country at the same time they did but are not eligible for DACA status because they were outside any of the many arbitrary date ranges in DACA (e.g., they came here as at 16 instead of younger, or were 32 or older in 2012, etc).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
Yeah.... Obama’s legacy is something I’m kind of torn on because while he did stem the bleeding in comparison to what the Tea Party, and Trump wanted, he still managed to get a lot of right wing policies implemented via the Nixon in China effect. Anyway, I’m working on an effortpost about the history of Organized Labor and immigration, and it is not a pretty history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The most positive reading Obama's legacy is that he sincerely wanted to help the DREAMers, and made the miscalculation that if he was super tough on other forms of undocumented immigration he would buy enough goodwill to pass the dream act. I think the first step in this discussion should be to determine whose interests a country's immigration policy is supposed to advance and to what degree. Because on one end you'd have a limited number of youngish, educated and ideally English-speaking people and on the other end, all non-taliban Afghanis or something. The current situation seems completely ridiculous as I don't think it actually meaningfully contributes to either goal, while being very slow, inconsistent and full of selective enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Hasn't the overall number of immigrants been going down during this period? That would be very important for interpreting these statistics. Number of people entering yes, number of people inside the country no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
The number of undocumented immigrants has stabilized and decreased slightly since 2007, however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Reposting this from the trump thread because that thread moves fast and it needs to be known about : Immigration enforcement needs a serious top-to-bottom overhaul yesterday. Getting rid of ICE is a good start but we need to do more. When poo poo like this is happening: A guy calls the police because somebody was trying to break into his car and/or house. ICE abuses the warrant system to get the police to bring him in, despite not committing a crime, but being the victim of a crime. I think we can all agree that ICE is out of control. But ICE is just the tip of the iceberg. Our immigration court system (EOIR) is beyond hosed up. For starters they aren't actually real courts but administrative proceedings. Ones where you're not actually sitting in front of a real judge. Very frequently, people are before these courts with no lawyers, because as a civil administrative procedure, you aren't entitled to a public defender, so if you want a lawyer to sit with you, $$$$. And if you're a literal child and you're facing deportation, no lawyer for you, even if you are three years old, because according the EOIR, a three year old is old enough to represent themselves in court. It's entirely possible and legal to use "secret evidence" for deportation, and yes, that is exactly as bas as it sounds. So yes, we need to get rid of ICE, but that's a start. A clean sweep of the EOIR and moving them to be under the judiciary instead of the executive is another vital one, but really the entire immigration needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So the government shouldn't serve the interests of capital, but it shouldn't serve people outside the nation, none of that socialist internationalism. A third way, perhaps. You're forgetting the part where immigration primarily benefits multinational corporations and neoliberalism, economically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:18 |
|
|
viral spiral posted:You're forgetting the part where immigration primarily benefits multinational corporations and neoliberalism, economically speaking. Immigration as it is implemented today does in fact, massively empower the capital class. And badly handled immigration reform would give them even more power. Labor has traditionally been anti-immigration, and many of the more draconian immigration bills I've mentioned were supported by labor. And there's a very obvious reason for that, as workers would organize and take direct action against management and the capital class, management would use immigrants as scab labor and plays the two groups against each other. If we want to reform immigration in a way that doesn't give massive power and act as a wealth transfer to the top 1%, we need to do away with employer sponsorship requirements, which create a massive imbalance in power between labor and capital, and then we also need to provide a path to citizenship for the undocumented, to remove that leverage by capital. As for keeping capital from exploiting immigrants as a wedge against labor? That is what union shops/closed shops, and the abolition of Taft-Hartley and right to work laws are for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2018 22:47
|
|