Handling illegal immigration

[civvver]

The problem cannot be solved until you know what you are trying to achieve.

There are lots of options:

• No immigration
• Some immigration
• Needed skills only immigration
• Agriculture worker immigration
• Immigration by quota
• Open borders
• Green Cards only
• Work Permits only
• Citizenship path
• Deportation for existing illegals
• Amnesty for current Illegals
• Prosecute employers
• Ignore employers hiring illegals
• Benefits for illegals
• No benefits for illegals
• Some benefits for illegals

Until you know what success looks like, you cannot actually make a coherent plan.

That's a good point and I think what we should be trying to achieve is a mixture of a lot of immigration into needed skills. Unemployment is under 4% which is so low. I don't know what a healthy level is where there's actually enough workers for jobs but I know tons of companies that have trouble filling positions. And a lot of them are for good jobs. We don't have enough people in skilled trades for one.

Also our demographics are shifting as boomers retire and millennials delay marriage and families and have smaller families. We need young people to fill in those gaps.

I would say no criminal backgrounds other than minor misdemeanors. Sort the immigrants into three categories, skilled workers, unskilled workers and professionals. Skilled and professionals always get in, unskilled have a quota and a lottery system with preference given to those with children under 12. Those kids are going to go to our schools, learn our language and culture and get jobs and buy stuff someday and drive our economy.

We need more people buying stuff locally and filling jobs. Obviously we don't want people coming in and immediately going on food stamps but I think that is more of a myth than a reality.

Actually, wage suppression by foreign-born engineers is a thing and is why Google et al want more H1- B visas despite not actually needing them.

I think overall that the goal of 'open borders' is just a distraction that liberals should set aside for the moment. This should in no way be construed as support of anti-immigration policies broadly or as support of anything Trump does specifically. I just feel that the goal of open borders is not something that is widely supported and is a concept that deserves a lot of scrutiny over undesired, unforeseen affects. It should not be used as a blanket rallying cry from the left - particularly when it is used as a bludgeon by the right to suppress any pro-immigration movement.

Basically, it's something that deserves study and shouldn't be advocated as a panacea until that time. Until then, I don't think the left should push for this because it will only generate a huge backlash from the voting public.

I kind of assume I'm about to be called a racist now...

I suppose it depends on the company. I have heard what you're talking about, but google engineers already make tons of money. My company and the companies I know around here pay exactly the same whether you are an h1b or not, it's just all based on experience and job title. We frankly don't get anyone local to apply cus there aren't many computer engineers in our area.

 

[EgonSpengler]

"What the Democrats are looking for is open borders, which will bring tremendous crime." - Donald Trump, 26 June 2018

See? Completely disingenuous. If you support Trump, you don't just support a liar, you support lying.

Surely your own constitution is clear about the question of freedom of/from religion.

It seems that way to me, but what do I know?

 

[warpus]

Does anyone sane support "open borders"? It just won't work, unless you're talking about a group of countries with a very similar standard of living, such as the Schengen zone in Europe

 

[Broken_Erika]

To the republicans, there are only 2 options. Totally open borders with no restrictions what-so-ever. Or Totally closed borders with no exceptions what-so-ever.

 

[Synobun]

Does anyone sane support "open borders"? It just won't work, unless you're talking about a group of countries with a very similar standard of living, such as the Schengen zone in Europe

I support it as an ideal to work towards. I don't believe just randomly switching to an open borders policy would have... beneficial results.

Then again, I imagine most don't consider me sane. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Does anyone sane support "open borders"?

Not that I'm aware of. Cynthia Nixon proposed allowing illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses, and to dissolve ICE. Kamala Harris called for the government to not build any new immigration detention centers.

 

[Akka]

Also our demographics are shifting as boomers retire and millennials delay marriage and families and have smaller families. We need young people to fill in those gaps.

Because Earth population is too small ?
We can't run on an infinite growth model forever. At some time we'll need to deal with shrinking population. Better start early.

Also, you're going to have a tough sell about "we need more worker" when going outside the USA, with Europe n°1 problem being unemployment.
"let's import a ton of people ready to work slave wage when we already have whole generations unable to find work" isn't going to flew very well in these parts.

 

[Peuri]

Because Earth population is too small ?
We can't run on an infinite growth model forever. At some time we'll need to deal with shrinking population. Better start early.

Also, you're going to have a tough sell about "we need more worker" when going outside the USA, with Europe n°1 problem being unemployment.
"let's import a ton of people ready to work slave wage when we already have whole generations unable to find work" isn't going to flew very well in these parts.

Capitalism works on the idea that tomorrow there will be more wealth than today. Going from growth to a shrinking economy will have to alter the way the whole evonomy works. Will the elites will want to do that?

 

[warpus]

I support it as an ideal to work towards. I don't believe just randomly switching to an open borders policy would have... beneficial results.

I hold the same position. I see EU's expansion (and as a result the expansion of the Schengen zone) as the way to accomplish this. Obviously the EU will probably never expand into North America or whatever, but it is through these political treaties that we will get closer to "open borders".

Here in North America though, we could perhaps one day see an open border between the U.S. and Canada.. but for the last 15 years we've been moving in the exact opposite direction. IMO it's far more likely that Canada would get an open border agreement with other western countries, such as the UK, Australia, etc.. but.. that is still many decades away it seems.. and any sort of open border between Canada and the U.S. is just.. not even on the horizon. Open border between Canada or the U.S. and other countries on the continent? Much much further away

So yeah, as a far away dream, something that will happen centuries from now, yeah, we should strive towards it. But it's just not gonna happen anytime soon wrt to North America

 

[innonimatu]

Actually, wage suppression by foreign-born engineers is a thing and is why Google et al want more H1- B visas despite not actually needing them.

I do often read complaints about that, seems to be a thing. And if so it sheds some light on why certain corporations preferentially finance some political groups.

I think overall that the goal of 'open borders' is just a distraction that liberals should set aside for the moment. This should in no way be construed as support of anti-immigration policies broadly or as support of anything Trump does specifically. I just feel that the goal of open borders is not something that is widely supported and is a concept that deserves a lot of scrutiny over undesired, unforeseen affects. It should not be used as a blanket rallying cry from the left - particularly when it is used as a bludgeon by the right to suppress any pro-immigration movement.

Basically, it's something that deserves study and shouldn't be advocated as a panacea until that time. Until then, I don't think the left should push for this because it will only generate a huge backlash from the voting public.

I kind of assume I'm about to be called a racist now...

The "open borders" thing is not a rallying cry for the left. It is a very divisive one. For an example, in Germany the leftist party (Die Linke) is split between a "new left" calling for open borders, and an "old left" concerned with advancing economic welfare for the working people. The old left argues (albeit not much in public, to avoid showing divisions) that the nation-state is not outdated, it is the one available political bastion on which to fight for worker's rights. And that defending the integrity of such an institution is fundamental to achieving progress in that.

And this leads to an older issue the left has: ultimately the state is to be done away with... but the state is also the "place" where laws are made and enforced, where those must be changed to gain something. Absent the state, what remains are the other organized social groups and the force they can command. The law of the jungle? The existing organized social groups capable of taking over are the big corporations, the existing institutions available the ingrained ones of property and money and employment.... Most leftists are not libertarians or anarchists, they do not believe that abolishing the state will also immediately abolish private property and the power of the few over the many. They fear that weakening the state will only enhance that power. It does go back to the old split between anarchists and utopian socialists/communists on one side, and social-democracts and (soviet-type) communists on the other. Currently the states seems to be the only large-scale enablers of some kind of democratic political participation. Flawed though it may be in many places.

Immigration controls became an urgent issue because many people among the left's "constituency" do see disadvantages to it, and have been moving politically accordingly. The issue is political, real, and immediate. Decrying those who oppose it as racist or simple-minded seems foolish and unfair.

 

[Akka]

Capitalism works on the idea that tomorrow there will be more wealth than today. Going from growth to a shrinking economy will have to alter the way the whole evonomy works. Will the elites will want to do that?

Want or not want, one day reality will catch up to us, and the longer we kick the can down the road, the harsher the results will be.
Just like with pollution, global warming and so on : it cost a pittance to not ruin something, it cost a lot to repair it, it's ruinous to rebuild it once it's been destroyed.

 

[warpus]

Capitalism works on the idea that tomorrow there will be more wealth than today. Going from growth to a shrinking economy will have to alter the way the whole evonomy works. Will the elites will want to do that?

They will have to adapt eventually, unless we run into a way to create energy out of nothing.

 

[REDY]

Does anyone sane support "open borders"? It just won't work, unless you're talking about a group of countries with a very similar standard of living, such as the Schengen zone in Europe

I dont know if I am sane, but open borders seems still as an interesting option in the context of EU migration crisis where bunch of countries do not protects its borders while getting money to do it, protesting when somebody uphold rules, want to force migrants to countries which do not want migrants and where migrants do not want migrate, blaming them for so called lack of solidarity or nitpicking. It is the way how we would get rid off bureaucracy, hypocrisy and corruption regards migration, simply I like this option to be clean and clear. Simply lets give anybody the right to live where does he want, but do not give him any support. In EU context it would improve country relations, save Schengen, make market decide. The downside would be effectively end of social state and nationhood.

 

[warpus]

The problem with the EU and migration is that there is no plan, since nobody can agree on a way forward. There needs to be a common plan though, we are going to see more migration problems going forward, not less

 

[JollyRoger]

Marrying a Trump seems the best path to immigration - we get immigrants willing to do a job that most Americans do not want to do or I suppose we could import immigrants from humorless lands to moderate our boundaries.

 

[Arwon]

I don't understand why you can't have all of the things you want and strict and well thought out immigration regulation.

I'm an immigrant myself, and it took us a long time to finally settle here in Canada and eventually become citizens. We had to jump through a lot of hoops to make it happen. Immigration regulations in Canada are more strict than in the U.S. I believe.. and it seems to work as a system. Canada is not overwhelmed with immigrants and the rate at which we accept them is reasonable.

At 20%, Canada has a substantially higher foreign-born population than the United States (13%). Don't confuse current hysteria in the United States for an objectively high level of migration. It's a relatively average country within the OECD for foreign born population levels.

https://data.oecd.org/migration/foreign-born-population.htm

It's also notable that many of the Trump voting states, which are presumably the ones most caught up in anti-migrant sentiment, have quite low numbers of foreigners.

 

[Cutlass]

It isn't, but that's because the amount of people who are doing this is not that significant compared to the overall population.

Remember that my original post was made as a response to a post that, ironically of course, stated that if people out-compete you that's a "you-problem", not a societal problem. My point was to show that it is not a "you-problem", simply because these people have an advantage over you that allows them to out-compete you. Being an immigrant who wants to live in the country and found a family there, and being an immigrant who lives in the country to send money to his family that lives elsewhere, are two very different things economically.

Yeah. The latter needs a higher wage.

In other words, all you've got is a strawman.

 

[Cutlass]

What's the upside to letting in 3rd world immigrants? They're either low income or living on unemployment benefits, which makes them a net drain. In addition to that, you get all the crime, terrorism and the downward pressure on wages. All this for what, just so that we can pursue an multicultural utopia which has already failed even on its own terms? I guess you could argue that not letting them in is cruel, because then they'd have to live with their own kind, in their own countries that are... what's the word Trump used? But if they don't want to live with their own kind, why would I want to live with them? There's no upside, mass immigration is a failed project, and it's about time we acknowledge this fact.

Immigrants are essentially always a net gain to the economy.

 

[Archbob]

I actually don't see why US and Canada can't have open borders. US-Mexico, that would never work right now but US/Canada I think would be fine. Its not like there a giant hoard of Canadian refugees wanting to come to the US and demographically, Canada may be more white than the USA, so the trumpists shoudn't have much to complain about.

 

[bernie14]

One of the problems in the U.S. is that they allowed all these illegal immigrants to settle there, turned a blind eye to it, allowed them to take on jobs nobody wants to do, etc.. Now decades later, after families have set up shop here, all of a sudden the rules are changing.

Obviously you want strict regulations wrt immigration, and you want good ways to deal with people who try to circumvent that. But if you allow these people to settle in your country for decades, that's sort of on you when millions of people end up taking advantage of it.

so...there you go native americans