If living and working in the US without benefit of "documents" is an infraction, a crime on some level, then it is a crime undertaken in conspiracy--or collusion--with employers, who violate laws by employing the undocumented. When employers are rounded up and punished I may consider supporting mass deportations, but not before. Of course, the former will never happen.
If living and working in the US without benefit of "documents" is an infraction, a crime on some level, then it is a crime undertaken in conspiracy--or collusion--with employers, who violate laws by employing the undocumented. When employers are rounded up and punished I may consider supporting mass deportations, but not before. Of course, the former will never happen.
A lot of us who want much stricter immigration enforcement would agree with you that it should start with employer sanctions: I for one am totally in favor of starting there.
And I'm unsympathetic to the argument that, "Oh, if we sanction employers the price of (name your food or other item) will go up!" If prices for American consumers depend on importing indentured labor to maintain them, then we should be paying the real economic cost, and if those things cannot be produced economically in the US while paying a living wage, then we should stop subsidizing them through illegal immigration and import them from countries where they can be.
I agree with most of what you said. At least here in CA, though, undocumented workers are hardly тАЬindentured.тАЭ For house cleaning, minding kids, gardening, and other domestic chores, the prevailing wage is at least $20-25/hr (in cash, with no deductions). And service providers are free to accept or reject a particular job.
ItтАЩs not just CA. ItтАЩs in тАЬredтАЭ states too. My Florida Man best buddy helps his Brazilian baby momma (theyтАЩre тАЬdivorcedтАЭ as an item) run a very successful residential and commercial cleaning business with 25-35 regular workers, and a deep pool of willing тАЬcontractorsтАЭ for surges in demand. Their workers make at least $20/hr as well, and each group of 5 gets a company car to drive/ride in. They too can easily find other jobs.
America will really miss its тАЬillegals.тАЭ
On the other hand, if Reagan could declare an amnesty, why canтАЩt Trump? Because heтАЩs a weak *ussy ass b*tchтАЭ?
Keep comparing Trump to Reagan in the media. HeтАЩll have to respond.
The situation that you describe has turned me partially around on the idea that we no longer need ANY unskilled immigration. We do, but that's not the same as 1890s style unlimited unskilled immigration.
The Labor Department should be charged with setting an annual number of unskilled people who can probably be employed, and that number with an overage of up to 10% can be admitted, and can stay, provided that they're gainfully employed and enrolled with Social Security within 90 days, with failure of employers to pay a living wage plus benefits being a federal offense.
I agree that Trump should constantly be compared to Reagan: he'll never come out well on THAT. As for the Reagan Amnesty, you don't hear suggestions to repeat it because it failed in its primary goal of wiping the slate clean to make room for something better. Instead, we got the same old-same old. "Fool me once ..." For my thoughts on how to address the state of the illegals already here and working productively for a long time, see my response to @TomD below.
IтАЩm circling back belatedly. I want all immigration regulated, with the goal of no тАЬundocumentedтАЭ over time. I think we need a reasonable level of amnesty, together with really, really meaning it this time with regard to further unlawful entry (through legislation with enhanced sanctions), as well as relatively free availability of non-immigrant visas for the labor we need.
Please see my comment on this in response to TomD, immediately below. One of my frustrations with the US immigration debate is that other countries have already found solutions to a lot of these questions, and we can copy them rather than reinventing it all from scratch. The US is the world's greatest immigration magnet so not all solutions are scalable, but some of them are, and others can be adapted.
There exists an expression, "Common law marriage." It is not universally recognized among the states, but common law is real. Why could there not be common law citizenship? There has got to be a difference between those who are good, productive workers, friends and neighbors and those arrived just yesterday.
In Brazil (where I live now, and unlike the United States) there's no pressure on legal permanent residents to become citizens. They can come and go from the country at will, as long as they aren't away for more than two continuous years. They have all the rights of Brazilians except the rights to vote, to hold office, or to work in the civil and diplomatic services or the military officer corps, and there's no stigma connected to the status. Their children born in Brazil are natural-born Brazilian citizens. They CAN become citizens if they choose and can meet the requirements, the most stringent of which is a spoken, comprehension, reading, and writing control of the Portuguese Language at about the level of a graduate of a good high school; most don't bother, and suffer no repercussions.
It makes sense for me to see that kind of permanent residency extended in an amnesty to every illegal who has been in the US for a specified time, is not a public charge, passes a criminal background check, and whose taxes are up to date, with no penalty. To become eligible for citizenship, in addition to the above they should pay a fine and get in line, "in line" meaning that their applications would be processed along with those of legal applicants around the world whose applications are accepted on the same day.
Re: "Not a public charge." I agree with that. Contrary to the propaganda, most of the folks we're talking about are in no way a public charge. (New Zealand puts a $40k cap on public funds flowing to immigrants, even if they are married to citizens.)
I agree. The actual effect will probably be minimal -- every study I'm aware of indicates that immigrants whatever their category are usually some of the hardest working people around -- but there's a substantial and maybe meaningful number of people that will make that century-old language a hill that they're willing to die on. A big fight that's easy to avoid.
I "liked" your comment for its recognition of the abuses of the system. But I want to be clear: I don't support artificial restrictions on how many people can come from where. Find a way to track border crossing people once they enter. Fully fund processing so we can distinguish between refugees needing asylum, seasonal workers in various industries, and actual bad actors. Then basically let the market (quaint idea, yes?) determine who and how many come here, and for how long. Make paths to citizenship or legal work status less onerous as long as you're not a bad actor. And enforce their treatment once here, too.
One of Joe's good ideas was to release asylum applicants into the community, leaving them to fend for themselves on the most part, and tracking them with some combination of ankle bracelets and dedicated telephones with GPS and voice- recognition software. He saved billions in detention costs but it cost him big-time as it was put forth as evidence that he was standing at the border just waving people in. We really have to do better on the asylum hearings, as the recent Senate bill would have done.
That sounds to me like a basically standard Open Borders position. It's certainly a consistent policy view, and has a valid place in any rational policy debate on immigration going forward if we are ever allowed to have one, as long as you don't expect it to be one of the assumptions of that debate.
The rules for documenting citizenship status for employees are ... extensive, at least in MN. No employer is working these people without explicitly breaking the law themselves: they need to be fully held accountable as well, actually moreso as they're literally the 'demand' part of the supply/demand labor equation.
If Homan is willing to deport non-criminal undocumented workers, why not deport criminals even if they are not undocumented workers. I bet MAGAland would be for it.
If living and working in the US without benefit of "documents" is an infraction, a crime on some level, then it is a crime undertaken in conspiracy--or collusion--with employers, who violate laws by employing the undocumented. When employers are rounded up and punished I may consider supporting mass deportations, but not before. Of course, the former will never happen.
A lot of us who want much stricter immigration enforcement would agree with you that it should start with employer sanctions: I for one am totally in favor of starting there.
And I'm unsympathetic to the argument that, "Oh, if we sanction employers the price of (name your food or other item) will go up!" If prices for American consumers depend on importing indentured labor to maintain them, then we should be paying the real economic cost, and if those things cannot be produced economically in the US while paying a living wage, then we should stop subsidizing them through illegal immigration and import them from countries where they can be.
I agree with most of what you said. At least here in CA, though, undocumented workers are hardly тАЬindentured.тАЭ For house cleaning, minding kids, gardening, and other domestic chores, the prevailing wage is at least $20-25/hr (in cash, with no deductions). And service providers are free to accept or reject a particular job.
ItтАЩs not just CA. ItтАЩs in тАЬredтАЭ states too. My Florida Man best buddy helps his Brazilian baby momma (theyтАЩre тАЬdivorcedтАЭ as an item) run a very successful residential and commercial cleaning business with 25-35 regular workers, and a deep pool of willing тАЬcontractorsтАЭ for surges in demand. Their workers make at least $20/hr as well, and each group of 5 gets a company car to drive/ride in. They too can easily find other jobs.
America will really miss its тАЬillegals.тАЭ
On the other hand, if Reagan could declare an amnesty, why canтАЩt Trump? Because heтАЩs a weak *ussy ass b*tchтАЭ?
Keep comparing Trump to Reagan in the media. HeтАЩll have to respond.
The situation that you describe has turned me partially around on the idea that we no longer need ANY unskilled immigration. We do, but that's not the same as 1890s style unlimited unskilled immigration.
The Labor Department should be charged with setting an annual number of unskilled people who can probably be employed, and that number with an overage of up to 10% can be admitted, and can stay, provided that they're gainfully employed and enrolled with Social Security within 90 days, with failure of employers to pay a living wage plus benefits being a federal offense.
I agree that Trump should constantly be compared to Reagan: he'll never come out well on THAT. As for the Reagan Amnesty, you don't hear suggestions to repeat it because it failed in its primary goal of wiping the slate clean to make room for something better. Instead, we got the same old-same old. "Fool me once ..." For my thoughts on how to address the state of the illegals already here and working productively for a long time, see my response to @TomD below.
IтАЩm circling back belatedly. I want all immigration regulated, with the goal of no тАЬundocumentedтАЭ over time. I think we need a reasonable level of amnesty, together with really, really meaning it this time with regard to further unlawful entry (through legislation with enhanced sanctions), as well as relatively free availability of non-immigrant visas for the labor we need.
Please see my comment on this in response to TomD, immediately below. One of my frustrations with the US immigration debate is that other countries have already found solutions to a lot of these questions, and we can copy them rather than reinventing it all from scratch. The US is the world's greatest immigration magnet so not all solutions are scalable, but some of them are, and others can be adapted.
There exists an expression, "Common law marriage." It is not universally recognized among the states, but common law is real. Why could there not be common law citizenship? There has got to be a difference between those who are good, productive workers, friends and neighbors and those arrived just yesterday.
In Brazil (where I live now, and unlike the United States) there's no pressure on legal permanent residents to become citizens. They can come and go from the country at will, as long as they aren't away for more than two continuous years. They have all the rights of Brazilians except the rights to vote, to hold office, or to work in the civil and diplomatic services or the military officer corps, and there's no stigma connected to the status. Their children born in Brazil are natural-born Brazilian citizens. They CAN become citizens if they choose and can meet the requirements, the most stringent of which is a spoken, comprehension, reading, and writing control of the Portuguese Language at about the level of a graduate of a good high school; most don't bother, and suffer no repercussions.
It makes sense for me to see that kind of permanent residency extended in an amnesty to every illegal who has been in the US for a specified time, is not a public charge, passes a criminal background check, and whose taxes are up to date, with no penalty. To become eligible for citizenship, in addition to the above they should pay a fine and get in line, "in line" meaning that their applications would be processed along with those of legal applicants around the world whose applications are accepted on the same day.
Re: "Not a public charge." I agree with that. Contrary to the propaganda, most of the folks we're talking about are in no way a public charge. (New Zealand puts a $40k cap on public funds flowing to immigrants, even if they are married to citizens.)
I agree. The actual effect will probably be minimal -- every study I'm aware of indicates that immigrants whatever their category are usually some of the hardest working people around -- but there's a substantial and maybe meaningful number of people that will make that century-old language a hill that they're willing to die on. A big fight that's easy to avoid.
Agree.
I "liked" your comment for its recognition of the abuses of the system. But I want to be clear: I don't support artificial restrictions on how many people can come from where. Find a way to track border crossing people once they enter. Fully fund processing so we can distinguish between refugees needing asylum, seasonal workers in various industries, and actual bad actors. Then basically let the market (quaint idea, yes?) determine who and how many come here, and for how long. Make paths to citizenship or legal work status less onerous as long as you're not a bad actor. And enforce their treatment once here, too.
One of Joe's good ideas was to release asylum applicants into the community, leaving them to fend for themselves on the most part, and tracking them with some combination of ankle bracelets and dedicated telephones with GPS and voice- recognition software. He saved billions in detention costs but it cost him big-time as it was put forth as evidence that he was standing at the border just waving people in. We really have to do better on the asylum hearings, as the recent Senate bill would have done.
Agree. The "path" is almost a red herring. Hand out work permits and let folks apply for citizenship, or not, as they see fit.
That sounds to me like a basically standard Open Borders position. It's certainly a consistent policy view, and has a valid place in any rational policy debate on immigration going forward if we are ever allowed to have one, as long as you don't expect it to be one of the assumptions of that debate.
Fully agree.
The rules for documenting citizenship status for employees are ... extensive, at least in MN. No employer is working these people without explicitly breaking the law themselves: they need to be fully held accountable as well, actually moreso as they're literally the 'demand' part of the supply/demand labor equation.
If Homan is willing to deport non-criminal undocumented workers, why not deport criminals even if they are not undocumented workers. I bet MAGAland would be for it.
Trump himself should be first against the wall then.
Gee, why didn't I think of thatЁЯШЙЁЯеВ
I remember that during his first term it was discovered that only 5% of Trump properties used EVerify.
Good old medieval banishment gets a bad rap....
I "liked" it because we could find the one or other OLD CONVICTED FELON to banish, doncha think?
He and his family went to France.
Yep. I was wrong on two counts. I was thinking of Idi Amin, who went into exile in Saudi Arabia.... .