|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States22883 Posts
On January 28 2016 14:49 Introvert wrote:
Of course missing the crucial context. They had their amnesty. And what was the result? Three decades later we have millions more (several times what it was in then) in the same situation. We saw what happened in the 80s. We aren't going to repeat history.
Edit: that's not the only difference, but it's an important one. Also, 3 decades now. Jeez.
Except it wasn't actually a failure. The number of illegal immigrants doubled because the demand for hard labor skyrocketed. That would've happened regardless of Simpson Mazzoli. We'd be talking about 15 million immigrants instead of 12. Instead we mitigated part of it and ended up with more government revenue and a stronger farming sector.
If your only goal is to reduce illegal immigration, then it only made a slight impact. If your goal is to make the country stronger, it did precisely that.
|
On January 28 2016 15:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 14:49 Introvert wrote:
Of course missing the crucial context. They had their amnesty. And what was the result? Three decades later we have millions more (several times what it was in then) in the same situation. We saw what happened in the 80s. We aren't going to repeat history.
Edit: that's not the only difference, but it's an important one. Also, 3 decades now. Jeez. Except it wasn't actually a failure. The number of illegal immigrants doubled because the demand for hard labor skyrocketed. That would've happened regardless of Simpson Mazzoli. We'd be talking about 15 million immigrants instead of 12. Instead we mitigated part of it and ended up with more government revenue and a stronger farming sector. If your only goal is to reduce illegal immigration, then it only made a slight impact. If your goal is to make the country stronger, it did precisely that.
The bill *itself* wasn't a failure because all the other things cLutZ mentioned were to be separate and passed later. It's only real effect was amnesty, and that was its purpose.
|
It's interesting to see Clinton make the same mistakes she made in 2008. She makes a paid speech to Wall St which Sanders mentions and she counters that Sanders is using Karl Rove tactics against her.
|
What's it worth to keep an illegal immigrant out?
While I personally don't mind immigration much, others do, and it makes sense to ensure that if we're going to do something, we do it well. When deciding what measures to enact, a key question is how much money we have to work with. So it's important to figure out what it's worth to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
This has both an economic component, for which I'm sure we could come up with decent numbers, and a moral component, for the value of enforcing laws in general, which is very much a judgment call.
Last I heard, the estimated number of illegals in the US was around 11 million; what would it be worth to get that number down to a stable state of 10 million? i.e. how much more spending a year
I say stable state because what ultimately matters is the amount of illegal immigrants here over time; it's not how many get deported or stopped at the border, its how many get through and how long they stay. And I'm looking to change the system rather than apply a temporary push whose effects will dissipate once it is done.
|
On January 28 2016 22:46 zlefin wrote:
What's it worth to keep an illegal immigrant out?
While I personally don't mind immigration much, others do, and it makes sense to ensure that if we're going to do something, we do it well. When deciding what measures to enact, a key question is how much money we have to work with. So it's important to figure out what it's worth to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
This has both an economic component, for which I'm sure we could come up with decent numbers, and a moral component, for the value of enforcing laws in general, which is very much a judgment call.
Last I heard, the estimated number of illegals in the US was around 11 million; what would it be worth to get that number down to a stable state of 10 million? i.e. how much more spending a year
I say stable state because what ultimately matters is the amount of illegal immigrants here over time; it's not how many get deported or stopped at the border, its how many get through and how long they stay. And I'm looking to change the system rather than apply a temporary push whose effects will dissipate once it is done.
Well the plan from the leading Republican candidate so far is to deport all 11 million and send their American children with them if they don't have someone to care for them here. Oh, and have Mexico build us a wall on their dime.
That's not even hyperbole, that's what he said his plan was.
It would be nice if reasonable suggestions like yours could at least be seriously considered. Republicans have to give up on ridiculous stuff like their leading nominee suggests and find a way to compromise on something that makes sense.
|
This isn't the Republican primary; nor is it the US congress; this is Teamliquid, thus I think we can reasonably aspire to a higher standard of debate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the legality stuff isnt even a real point because it is circular. immigration law stance obviously affects legal status of immigrants. given a particular migrant flow, the harsher the immigration law, the more illegals there will be. the more lax, the less illegals.
so if you want to solve 'illegality' give people more lax laws but lol
|
Pretty much this and the debate tonight will further prove this point:
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i prefer my zombie analogy
|
The number of work visa’s and other routes for immigration in the US is comically low and doesn’t meet the demand of our labor market. There is also a real concern with the US population and it shrinking(very bad for the economy) in the next 10-15 years due to people my age just not having kids.
Deporting all illegal immigrants is not viable. It would be very expensive and we are terrible at it. We miss family members, children and don’t go through the minimum best practice of waiting to get an agent that speaks the language of the deportee before processing them. And the communities that these immigrates are part of would not assist. Its spiteful and only talked about when someone is running for office.
The simplest solution is to provide a path to citizenship that starts with legal working status. Create a self filtering system that is fair and allows people to return to their country if they want, but also return to the US. Address criminals and deport those that are a threat, while also avoiding deporting people for previous offenses of illegal immigration. It will cost less and help any tax base that is currently hosting these immigrants. And its good for the economy over all. Not having immigrants isn’t.
It’s a complex and nuanced issue, but one that can be addressed if the politicians take the step to kill the discussion about deporting everyone. As populist and popular as that is, it is impossible and a disservice to the public to keep talking about it. I don’t even want to think of what “rounding up” 11 million people would look like over the years it would take to accomplish that.
|
To be fair to the guy Karl rove got bush elected twice to the presidency.
|
Justifying illegal immigration with the supposed needs of the American labor market is disingenuous at best. If the country needs more workers, then the legal worker visa program should be expanded. Illegal immigration shouldn't be tolerated.
|
United States42008 Posts
As I've said many times before, immigrating into the US is a bitch, even if you have family to give you an in. Takes a few years including a year in the US without the ability to work or integrate into the community, a lot of money and a strong understanding of the English language + the ability to fill out endless forms.
It's not like the country is overcrowded. I feel like a fast track system could be set up for immigrants who already hold, say, an EU or Canadian passport with a points based work history/educational history criteria, clean police history, large provable cash reserves and an understanding that you'll be kicked out if you become a criminal or scrounger. And the entire system could be massively sped up too. It's incomprehensibly backlogged. The filing fees are several thousand dollars and the forms are standardized and filled in digitally so it's not like they can't be read by a computer and reviewed by a human being. I have no idea what the fuck the fee money is being spent on but it's certainly not reading the forms, otherwise the turnaround time from submitting to getting a "yes/no" on immigration would be less than a week.
There are so many nations around the world which are better for the unemployed, homeless and criminal populations. Those people are not trying to get into the US from Europe. If they set criteria and you meet the criteria it should be as simple as "please take this money for confirming I meet the criteria" and then you get the visa and the right to work on the spot.
Legal immigration into the US at the moment is a joke and that means the only immigrants you get are the illegal ones.
|
On January 29 2016 02:04 KwarK wrote:
As I've said many times before, immigrating into the US is a bitch, even if you have family to give you an in. Takes a few years including a year in the US without the ability to work or integrate into the community, a lot of money and a strong understanding of the English language + the ability to fill out endless forms.
It's not like the country is overcrowded. I feel like a fast track system could be set up for immigrants who already hold, say, an EU or Canadian passport with a points based work history/educational history criteria, clean police history, large provable cash reserves and an understanding that you'll be kicked out if you become a criminal or scrounger. And the entire system could be massively sped up too. It's incomprehensibly backlogged. The filing fees are several thousand dollars and the forms are standardized and filled in digitally so it's not like they can't be read by a computer and reviewed by a human being. I have no idea what the fuck the fee money is being spent on but it's certainly not reading the forms, otherwise the turnaround time from submitting to getting a "yes/no" on immigration would be less than a week.
There are so many nations around the world which are better for the unemployed, homeless and criminal populations. Those people are not trying to get into the US from Europe. If they set criteria and you meet the criteria it should be as simple as "please take this money for confirming I meet the criteria" and then you get the visa and the right to work on the spot.
Legal immigration into the US at the moment is a joke and that means the only immigrants you get are the illegal ones.
Basically this. Our legal immigration system is a total shit show and needs to be completely reformed. We make it way too hard for certain types of people to come here, which is just idiotic beyond belief.
|
Rubio was tea party for all of five minutes after his election. It's been single-candidate representation of the tea party since Walker left.
|
On January 29 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2016 02:04 KwarK wrote:
As I've said many times before, immigrating into the US is a bitch, even if you have family to give you an in. Takes a few years including a year in the US without the ability to work or integrate into the community, a lot of money and a strong understanding of the English language + the ability to fill out endless forms.
It's not like the country is overcrowded. I feel like a fast track system could be set up for immigrants who already hold, say, an EU or Canadian passport with a points based work history/educational history criteria, clean police history, large provable cash reserves and an understanding that you'll be kicked out if you become a criminal or scrounger. And the entire system could be massively sped up too. It's incomprehensibly backlogged. The filing fees are several thousand dollars and the forms are standardized and filled in digitally so it's not like they can't be read by a computer and reviewed by a human being. I have no idea what the fuck the fee money is being spent on but it's certainly not reading the forms, otherwise the turnaround time from submitting to getting a "yes/no" on immigration would be less than a week.
There are so many nations around the world which are better for the unemployed, homeless and criminal populations. Those people are not trying to get into the US from Europe. If they set criteria and you meet the criteria it should be as simple as "please take this money for confirming I meet the criteria" and then you get the visa and the right to work on the spot.
Legal immigration into the US at the moment is a joke and that means the only immigrants you get are the illegal ones. Basically this. Our legal immigration system is a total shit show and needs to be completely reformed. We make it way too hard for certain types of people to come here, which is just idiotic beyond belief.
I agree; and agreement is the foundation of building a better system.
Is there anyone that disagrees with reforming the legal immigration system?
|
On January 29 2016 00:58 Plansix wrote:
The number of work visa’s and other routes for immigration in the US is comically low and doesn’t meet the demand of our labor market. There is also a real concern with the US population and it shrinking(very bad for the economy) in the next 10-15 years due to people my age just not having kids.
Deporting all illegal immigrants is not viable. It would be very expensive and we are terrible at it. We miss family members, children and don’t go through the minimum best practice of waiting to get an agent that speaks the language of the deportee before processing them. And the communities that these immigrates are part of would not assist. Its spiteful and only talked about when someone is running for office.
The simplest solution is to provide a path to citizenship that starts with legal working status. Create a self filtering system that is fair and allows people to return to their country if they want, but also return to the US. Address criminals and deport those that are a threat, while also avoiding deporting people for previous offenses of illegal immigration. It will cost less and help any tax base that is currently hosting these immigrants. And its good for the economy over all. Not having immigrants isn’t.
It’s a complex and nuanced issue, but one that can be addressed if the politicians take the step to kill the discussion about deporting everyone. As populist and popular as that is, it is impossible and a disservice to the public to keep talking about it. I don’t even want to think of what “rounding up” 11 million people would look like over the years it would take to accomplish that.
That might be the most simple, but it is also a bad solution, and here are a few reasons why:
1) I'll start with the saddest part, children. Children borne to Illegal immigrants are granted citizenship and cannot be deported, and often cannot even go home if their family is. This means that 1 DUI breaks up a family. I don't think such a system is morally tolerable. Since birthright citizenship is going nowhere, and letting felons who are of illegal status remain is intolerable (and stupid) a system that minimizes the chance that this situation happens is preferred.
2) While it is true that a trickle-style deportation (as we know a mass roundup is not going to happen) will cause labor costs to inch upwards, these effects are no different than minimum wage laws, and in many ways are much less harmful. If you believe in minimum wage law, this is a non-argument.
3) Possibly the most important, you cannot have open borders with a welfare state. While it is true that immigrant-led households underutilize welfare programs, that is only with respect to natives earning the same income. But they have a much lower median income, also many are younger, which serves as a temporary hiding of what their true cost of the system would be because of old-age programs being the bulk of welfare spending. The fact is, given our system, we need immigrants that are between 20-30 and earn in the 80th percentile +.
4) Lack of assimilation is real. We have data (which I'll supply if needed) that 4th and 5th generation South/Central American immigrants still lag far behind in academic achievement and incomes. This creates serious questions about the viability of continued immigration from that region, particularly because they appear to largely favor welfare programs when voting, exacerbating problem #3.
Is it complex? Yes. But that is only because we have so many working parts inside of the US, many of which basically require the complex legal immigration scheme to be what it is. Almost all of those things I personally oppose, and would prefer to have easy immigration after they are dismantled. However we know that that is politically unfeasible in the foreseeable future, so the tough immigration laws are needed to not exacerbate the problems already built into the Rube Goldberg machine.
|
Yeah, I wasn’t really trying to justify illegal immigration. Only point out that it is a result of our system being broken for well over a decade. And that reforming it has to start with ending the belief that the government could deport the majority of illegal immigrants. Attempts to do so would be a nightmare.
Edit: When people talk about “the lack of assimilation”, that shit is generational. There is a reason places like China Town and “the North End” exist in Boston and are dominated by people from a specific region. The next generation become “more American”. The argument of lack of assimilation is so weak because it has been levied against culture upon arriving in the US and were rebuffed for failing to instantly change. It is a complete non-issue in my opinion and pointless to bring up.
|
United States42008 Posts
Incidentally the thousands of dollars immigration costs doesn't include the cost of getting the prerequisites together such as the filing fees for certification that you have no criminal record, getting your vaccinations etc in line with US minimums (although this the NHS actually did for me for free over my lunch break after I called them that morning because single payer is awesome), certification of the medical stuff and an appointment with the one doctor's practice in the entire United Kingdom that the US government has approved to certify people as healthy (which just has to be corruption and kickbacks, surely. If nobody in the INS is getting a kickback from them I'd be amazed, they charge whatever the fuck they like).
Getting the visa takes a year and getting the Green Card took me from Feb 2014 to like May 2015. And that's with them waiving the interview portion of the process because they were backlogged and decided "fuck it, he can stay". The fee for the Green Card form processing is $1070 (plus separate fees for the addon forms) and all they did was read the damn thing and stamp it with approved.
|
To be fair, do we really want immigrants who can't afford a few thousand bucks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
