|
I highly recommend the work of Douglas Massey on immigration to understand the mess we are currently in and how it is the result of a bipartisan effort to look tough on immigration that completely backfired. Especially this one: https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/massey_new-latino-underclass.pdf
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Good op. I would just add the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 to the list of 1996 laws, because it goes hand in hand with IIRIRA in terms of expanding the list of crimes that are deportable, setting up cooperation with local law enforcement, and, more importantly reducing judicial review and the forms of defense that can be used against deportation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
PRAISE THE SUN posted:While current immigration policies definitely need modernization for the 21st century, I think that the people who flip their poo poo at the idea of having any kind of border control at all are absolutely insane. Literally every country in South America has extremely strict border policies and treats illegal immigrants far, far worse. This is literally a lie. In fact, the US has been pushing for a crack down on the tri-border region because there is so little control of it. I've driven from Brazil to Argentina through Uruguay and half the time there is no one at the border post between Brazil and Uruguay. And to the extent that there is a border presence, the concern is more with illegal imports than illegal people. You don't need a passport or a visa to cross any of these borders. And Mexico, of course, really started cracking down on its borders under request of the United States with programs like Frontera Sur.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
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). Which South American country "has extremely strict border policies and treats illegal immigrants far, far worse?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Here's what DREAMer organizations and activists think of the bills being debated this week. I think anyone who claims to care about dreamers should pay close attention to what they have to say about it. https://twitter.com/UNITEDWEDREAM/status/963887560144687105 https://twitter.com/UNITEDWEDREAM/status/963875755510902785 https://twitter.com/ErikaAndiola/status/963856191838412801 https://twitter.com/Re4mImmigration/status/963844081410600960 https://twitter.com/altochulo/status/963984324939968513 https://twitter.com/UndocuBlack/status/963927384792629248 https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/daca-harvard-medical-students/index.html
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/NathanJRobinson/status/1104454284542906368
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Yeah, this isn't him saying that he now supports open borders. This is him complaining that they didn't get enough credit for ruining people's lives. It is a pretty good indication of the rot at the core of the Obama administration policy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
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? 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 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
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Trump's DHS literally went to court to try and force immigrants to share toothbrushes and didn't see a need for them to shower. The particular lawsuit was an appeal of a 2017 decision. A 2017 decision asking for the enforcement of a 2015 lawsuit. You can read about it here: https://www.aila.org/File/Related/14111359v.pdf So, just to make it perfectly clear, so that you fully understand what we are talking about, and decide whether it's really about "Trump's DHS." In 2015, there was a lawsuit called Flores v Lynch. Lynch as in Loretta Lynch, Obama's AG. That lawsuit was about the unsanitary and unsafe conditions in detention centers, indefinite detention of children, and family separation, and how they violated the Flores settlement. The federal government lost the case and then appealed to the 9th circuit court of appeals. In that appeal, the case was reversed in part, affirmed in part. The part that was reversed was that the Obama administration successfully argued that that whole thing about sanitary conditions and no indefinite detention based on the Flores settlement did not apply to adults. So the Obama administration "won" the right to not provide sanitary and safe conditions to adults and to be able to hold them indefinitely. But they lost it with regards to both accompanied and unaccompanied minors. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf To be very clear, here is what the Obama administration had appealed: quote:In 2015, Flores moved to enforce the Settlement, arguing that it applied to all minors in the custody of immigration authorities. The district court agreed, granted the motion to enforce, and rejected the government’s alternative motion to modify the Settlement. The court ordered the government to: (1) make “prompt and continuous efforts toward family reunification,” (2) release class members without unnecessary delay, (3) detain class members in appropriate facilities, (4) release an accompanying parent when releasing a child unless the parent is subject to mandatory detention or poses a safety risk or a significant flight risk, (5) monitor compliance with detention conditions, and (6) provide class counsel with monthly statistical information. The government appealed, challenging the district court’s holding that the Settlement applied to all minors in immigration custody, its order to release parents, and its denial of the motion to modify. So after the loss that said that the Obama administration could not hold children indefinitely in unsanitary conditions, the federal government did nothing to comply with the legal order. So the plaintiffs went to court again to ask the courts to enforce the decision. In October of 2016, the plaintiffs asked the courts to enforce the judgement. This was what was decided in 2017: https://www.aila.org/File/Related/14111359v.pdf Which said that, indeed, the government should follow the court decision. That is when the Trump administration appealed again to not have to comply with the 2015 decision. So, again, just to make it very clear, when you say that "Trump's DHS went to court," what you are referring to is a legal case that started when a lawsuit was filed under Obama, who lost and appealed. They then lost part of the appeal, but did not comply with the decision, so the plaintiffs went to court again, still under Obama. The federal government lost, and then under Trump decided to appeal the enforcement decision. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Mar 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Little horror story of someone I know personally: H1b only lasts for 6 years. After that, you have to leave the country. Only exception is if you are in the process of applying for a green card. So this person, who is a Spanish teacher, was hired by a fancy boarding school. This boarding school decided to sponsor their green card. So they had an H1b while the greencard was being processed. Except that in the labor certification part of the process (employment based green card has to show they tried to hire an american first), the agency in charge of doing the labor certification decided to audit the application, because it listed knowledge of Spanish as a job requirement, and they found it suspicious that a Spanish teacher had to know Spanish. The audit took several years, so this person had used up the 6 years of H1b. Now, they could extend the H1b year by year as long as the green card process was under way. But here's the thing: the H1b allows you to stay in the country, but your visa can expire. And since visas can only be renewed at an embassy or consulate, and since it was a year by year thing, this person had valid paperwork but an expired visa (which allows you to stay in the US, but not to enter the US). This person's mother died. But to attend the funeral, they would need to leave the country. And to leave the country, they would need a visa to get back in. The consulate's next appointment for a visa renewal interview was 2 months out. They tried to get an emergency renewal due to the passing away of their mother, but the consulate deemed that that was not an emergency. So their choices were: go to their home country, attend the funeral, but then be stuck there for 2 months, at which point they'd lose their American job, lose the green card application, and then not be able to go back to the US at all, or miss their mother's funeral. Which is what ended up happening.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:So into the texas desert without a plan, as children, with no actual idea on what they are doing. This is such bad faith bullshit. For starters, most children aren't detained in the desert. Second, most children aren't crossing the border alone. Third, the indefinite detention of children is a fairly recent phenomenon. There is no conversation to be had with someone who thinks the options are either putting children in cages or letting them die alone in the desert.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:There's no argument to be had with someone that doesn't want to or is willing to understand that the world is not a black and white board with good and evil on it. Instead of just spewing bullshit from twitter and outrage actually provide solutions. There is more to the situation then a 140 character tweet. In terms of painting the world as black and white, i would suggest that saying that it's either camps or letting children die in the desert is pretty grotesque and dishonest. I have no patience for whatever meta bullshit you want to engage in. If you think "i don't understand poo poo about what is actually going on," I suggest you click on the little question mark under my name there to see how long and fequently I've participated in this thread, and whether my opinions of anything has changed because the party in power changed. Virtually all of these camps, concentration or otherwise, are less than 30 years old. The idea that it is some sort of intractable problem that there is no solution to is ridiculous. There are literally dozens of alternatives to having these camps. Here's a 2015 document (updated in 2019): https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-June-2019-FINAL-v-2.pdf joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:That's true, there is in fact a third option, according to that poster, which is "release them into cities." I literally posted a PDF with several alternatives. Why do we have to keep this charade that we have to keep the children in overcrowded detention centers because the alternatives are somehow worse?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Releasing them into cities where they'll quickly be starving and homeless with no real employment prospects apart from sex work. They won't be getting education, healthcare or anything like that. They have no supervision or protection from anyone who would want to harm them and a homeless person with no ties to the area has a target painted right on them. Can you point to where in the list of alternatives listed in the PDF it says "release children alone in cities to be abused by sex traffickers?" Jesus loving Christ, we're getting into new lows in terms of defense of the camps here. socialsecurity posted:Do you have any numbers on this? I see a great deal of talk about the surge in unaccompanied minors is that not real or even with the surge is it somehow still a very small %? Even if it's a small number are you suggesting we just dump the unaccompanied children at the border? Should there be an age cutoff or survival training or something? There are no hard numbers on this because DHS doesn't track that data. But it has been widely reported and is backed up by considerable evidence that unaccompanied minors turn themselves in to border patrol once they cross the Rio Grande: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/11/unaccompanied-minors-immigrants-border/ That one of the primary reasons the unaccompanied minors make the trip is for family reunification (indicating that they have family already here). And, on top of it all, unaccompanied minors doesn't refer literally to unaccompanied, but without a parent. Someone trying to cross with an uncle would be considered unaccompanied; https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43628.pdf I would also point to myth #4 in the following document: https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...zK819u0NlCdqi3w And in fact, between 1/3 and 1/2 of detained minors have at least one parent living in the US: https://www.unhcr.org/56fc266f4.html 1337JiveTurkey posted:The PDF is about families. The post I’m responding to says that the PDF details alternates to keeping children in camps which it absolutely doesn’t because it’s about families where the children have one or more guardians and the government isn’t acting in loco parentis. So, first you mischaracterize what I said, and now are trying to muddy the waters. If you want an alternative, for starters the US could start to follow the Flores settlement requirements, instead of trying to fight them like every administration has done since 1997.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
freeasinbeer posted:There was some insinuation that the US had regressed with regards to immigration and some level of insinuation that it was uniquely evil. With regards to the southern border, specifically, it is the most militarized and hardest to cross it has ever been. For most of American history, the southern border was essentially open, and you'd get seasonal migration in and out from Mexico and Central America.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People seem dismissive of the idea that very open borders is incompatible with a strong welfare state, but this country feels like pretty strong loving evidence of it. There's not a lot of countries looking for America's poor and desperate, which we have in ample supply. Canada spends money and energy making sure our people in need of health care aren't going across the border to get it from them, and there's been Canadians pretending to be married to Americans who need the health benefits. How many of us who don't qualify under their current immigration policies would move tomorrow if it meant almost never being worried about armed strangers or dealing with the state the GOP wants to build? Unless you think that the options are "open borders or children in cages," your argument is simply without basis in reality. Virtually all of the countries in the world with a more generous welfare state than the US also have a higher share of immigrants in the population than the us. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Uh, can you link the article associated with that chart? Those numbers as a percent of total population are literally off by an order of magnitude, so they are clearly counting only immigrants within specific categories You are linking an estimate of the number of undocumented immigrants when the chart is very clearly about documented immigration and the type of immigration document they have. Since the argument is "how easy is it to immigrate to a country," the number of documented immigrants is the relevant metric. The source is in the bottom of the image, by the way. And are you seriously, for real, trying to use the number of undocumented immigrants to argue that the US has a more welcoming immigration system than these other countries? That is just self evidently ridiculous. UCS Hellmaker posted:
This is ridiculous and absurd. Volunteering at your local shelter or donating to your refugee group may be great, but it will do jack poo poo about children in detention facilities. And we don't even have to fight over solutions: the legal precedents as to how to treat minors is already there. The Flores settlement already says exactly what should be done. Except that every administration since then has fought the Flores settlement in courts, either trying to modify it, or trying to prevent its enforcement, as I have already documented in this very thread. This isn't a matter of not knowing how to technically do something. This is a matter of politics and politicians not wanting to look soft on immigration. Like, allowing access to legal representation isn't some super complicated task. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:No, I'm saying the chart is transparently wrong because it is estimating that no country measured has more than 2.5% immigrants and only 4 have over 1%, which is, as I said, a literal order of magnitude off. Comparing the visa immigration of other countries to the refugees in the US is a total non-sequitur, and that is literally what you were doing here by segueing from: No, the argument that was made was that "open borders" was an impossibility because of costs to welfare state, and I pointed out that countries with more generous welfare states have allowed more immigrants, since that is the comparison in how open immigration systems are. Immigrant is a separate category than refugee, and it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about while insisting, while posting completely irrelevant links, that the data is wrong. Again, you have, for the second time now, called the chart transparently wrong while posting completely irrelevant links to disprove it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 08:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your chart doesn't show literally anything you're claiming it does because the data you're presenting has absolutely no probative value toward the point you're trying to make; which is exacerbated because you've concealed the source and refused to provide it when asked. Taking a screenshot of a tiny hyperlink that can't be clicked is not providing a source. The data source is literally in the image. I posted because the immigration type is an important component of the argument. If the main way to come to the US is through family visas, then that means that for anyone without family in the US, the situation is that much worse. But hey, since you are so upset about the data source, let's spend 5 minutes on google finding data that can disprove what i said, shall we? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population % of the population that is foreign born. Again, not the best metric because having a large undocumented immigrant population says nothing about how easy it is to immigrate to a country. And yet, there it is, same point: US with a lower percentage of foreign born than Canada and most of Europe. Or we can look at the OECD data on "permanent inflows" for 2019 and see that the US is, once again, far behind most of the countries with more generous welfare programs: http://www.oecd.org/migration/international-migration-outlook-1999124x.htm Of course, you don't like my data, feel free to post your own rather than these white noise posts
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 15:30
|
|
posted:
|
Jarmak posted:It's not my job to go find data you refuse to post, not even a little bit, not even for 30 seconds of effort. The fact you still refused to post it even now and had to resort to another poster finding it for you kind of tells me what I needed to know: you just grabbed a random chart off the internet without any effort into understanding the underlying data. Wait, are you seriously asking why I am using per population data? Are you seriously confused why, say, in comparing how many immigrants Belgium lets in versus the US, I'd use per capita numbers? Do you also think that in comparing welfare states we should use gross spending figures rather than per capita ones? And I am not "hand waving" undocumented immigrants. But, in the argument of "we can't let too many people in because they will use up all our welfare" undocumented immigrants are not relevant to the conversation because THEY WERE NOT LET IN. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE UNDOCUMENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. But even when you count them the US is still behind most European nations. And in the argument of "open borders are incompatible with a strong welfare state," the fact that stronger welfare states have allowed, proportionally, more legal immigrants is entirely related to the question at hand. That much should be self evident. So instead of this white noise meta posting, how about you provide some data to back up the opinion that high immigration is incompatible with a strong welfare state?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Since this is the policy thread, can you explain which specific policies from the top 5 countries in that chart the US should adopt? It would create a much more interesting discussion if we had something specific that we could discuss the relative merits of passing. Let me get this straight. I have to not only provide the data that proves the assertion that welfare state and immigration are incompatible is wrong, but I also have to pinpoint the specific policies that need be adopted? I am not your dancing puppet to do research for you. I provided data that a specific assertion was wrong. You can either accept that data and that the assertion is wrong, or you can provide your own data to actually show that the assertion is right. What, in particular, you consider to be "much more interesting" is of no concern to me. I personally would find it "much more interesting" if you actually provided a rationale for why you think immigration and welfare state are incompatible. But we haven't even gotten that far yet. All I've gotten is a bunch of attempts to nitpick actual data without you ever having to take a stand on the "immigration versus welfare state" argument that started all of this. Jaxyon posted:So we moved from "what solutions do you have, HUH?" This is a terrible probation. It is amazing that in this thread calling people C-SPAM posters, saying that they are just trying to "own the libs" and all of that is fine and kosher, but pointing out the wildly shifting goal posts with no effort is immediately probatable. I am out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) joepinetree fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2021 16:52
|
|