Trump's Immigration Reform

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I understand your point, you are saying if we reduce family based immigration (and increase skills based immigration), that this takes away preferential treatment enjoyed by US citizens who want to sponsor those family members?

How the United States Immigration System Works | American Immigration Council

No question to me that spouses and minor children are good. I can also go with parents.


Assuming "adult" means 21+ (didn't see a definition in the link), I don't see why we need to give preference to these categories. I would put "skills" over these "non-immediate family members". These adults can find their own way into the US.

Note that I'm not saying decrease legal immigration. I am definitely for increasing legal immigration, and increasing it much more by skillset. Your adult brother/sister want to come over, encourage them to get MS/PhDs, or critical skill like nursing etc.

Last I checked, family is family. Either way, I don't think it matters that much given it is essentially unlimited. I don't think we are taking any chances alienating foreign billionaires (US citizens, green card holders or just immigrants) by not allowing their adult children or siblings to stay in the country.

Not sure how much more can be done to increase the skillset part. Employment based visas are supposed to be about 21% of whatever the worldwide limit is. That came out to approximately 192,000 employment based visas in FY 2023. That does not include the 10,438,327 non immigrant visas.

I suspect if the US was to say "anyone that wants US citizenship will automatically get it, no significant wait or hassles", your stats are way way understated.

I suspect that you know that the U.S. would not say such a thing. Such a statement is just meant to scare people into believing the big bad caravan is coming. Stop.

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

I guess you can interpret it that way, that's not how I'd put it.

What I would say is ALL developed+ countries have categories for people wanting to come to their countries. In general, there are immigrants for permanency (voting rights) and non-immigrants for work, tourism, retirement etc. (no voting rights). Therefore, for the 11M+ illegals, I would categorize them in the latter.

You see racism, I see what all other developed countries do as a natural consequence in understanding that they cannot accept everyone/anyone that wants to come, immigrate and vote.

... and this includes the progressive wonderland of Nordic countries.

We definitely have our own of doing this. I believe we do a great job assimilating immigrants (e.g. better than most other countries) but we do a lousy job controlling our borders. And to fix a problem, we first have to admit there is a problem.

Unfortunately, a great many do not believe we have an illegal immigration problem ... and this plays, in no small part, the appeal of Trump (and the more right wing in Canada and western Europe).

Regarding your eloquent quote, times change. We should adapt to the times and current conditions.

Because you have mentioned the progressive wonderland of Nordic countries I went searching to see what their policies are and why they put them in place.

What seems pretty clear is the immigration policies in these countries have very little to do with an illegal immigration problem. The policies have to do with things like creating "the unwelcoming environment Denmark is deliberately creating to deter immigration, especially from cultures/societies deemed to be less compatible with Denmark’s professed liberal progressive values." and "to resist the prospect of Denmark’s traditionally homogeneous society becoming even more multicultural" which is almost solely directed to immigrants from the Middle East while all of the countries are heavily invested in bringing in Ukrainian refugees. Those quotes are from the Danes themselves and similar quotes were found from the other countries.

Which of those quotes are you suggesting the US should be role modeling given our society and our values?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Last I checked, family is family. Either way, I don't think it matters that much given it is essentially unlimited. I don't think we are taking any chances alienating foreign billionaires (US citizens, green card holders or just immigrants) by not allowing their adult children or siblings to stay in the country.

Depends on the definition of "family". Aunts and Uncles are family too, why not open it up to them? Why not your nieces and nephews? Then you really, really have chain migration.

Not sure how much more can be done to increase the skillset part. Employment based visas are supposed to be about 21% of whatever the worldwide limit is. That came out to approximately 192,000 employment based visas in FY 2023. That does not include the 10,438,327 non immigrant visas.

If we had the political will, it is so easy to increase the skillset part (and I've had this discussion before). We currently have visa categories for skilled talent. We have 460k+ foreign students in 2022/23 for graduate level studies. We have companies urging increase of H1-B (non-immigrant work visas) because demand exceeds the quota limits.

Therefore, greatly increase visa limits and the key clincher ... tell them they will get fast tracked to permanent residents & citizenship if they meet X, Y, Z criteria. Heck, toss in relocation assistance also. There will be a flood of applicants, and you want yellow and non-hispanic brown people, you'll definitely get the asian ones.

Obviously, it'll peter down after the initial rush. But what a big bonus to the future of the US. We'll get so much "intellectual capital" and more population. Create a 10 year plan and execute. We'll be set for (my guess) couple generations.

Page not found | IIE.

For the first time since 2014/15, international student enrollment across all academic levels increased in 2022/23. Graduate student enrollment increased the most, with 467,027 international students pursuing master's, doctorate, or professional degrees (+21% year-over-year).

China remained the top-sending country in 2022/23, with 289,526 students studying in the U.S. (-0.2% year-over-year). India, the second largest sending country, reached an all-time high of 268,923 international students in 2022/23, an increase of 35% year-over-year.

I suspect that you know that the U.S. would not say such a thing. Such a statement is just meant to scare people into believing the big bad caravan is coming. Stop.

Agree, the US definitely would not say such a thing. But always good to tie back to what I posted/responded about which is specifically in the below exchange with @Passacaglia (and then you & I continued). Therefore, if President Passacaglia was to implement the policy below, yeah I can see the US saying "such a thing". If there are conditions/constraints, he hasn't voice them (yet), but then TBF, his eyes are probably glazing over vs your/my exchanges so far.

My question to @Passacaglia was predicated on his statement

Specifically, on the big bad caravan, many started off in caravans and then caravans petered out. But then ... they're here. There are many different charts with different criteria, but see below from Pew and you get the idea. The illegal immigration problem is real, and it became a bigger problem under Joe.

Sharp fall in migrant encounters at US-Mexico border in 2024 | Pew Research Center
(graphic is too large to post, see link and first graphic)

Because you have mentioned the progressive wonderland of Nordic countries I went searching to see what their policies are and why they put them in place.

What seems pretty clear is the immigration policies in these countries have very little to do with an illegal immigration problem.

European countries have been swinging to more right wing because of (illegal & let's take in the refugees) problem. Canada has been cracking down because of the legal (open up, they'll come, jack up real estate prices etc.) problem. So legal & immigration policies that are too wide open, too unconstrained is a big part of the problem.

The other big part of the problem is their lack of success in integrating/assimilating these legal/illegal immigrants. I suspect a too much, too soon issue.

So yes, the Nordics don't necessarily have as big of illegal immigration problem as the US, but they have a (legal) refugee migration issue that their citizens & politicians are coming to realization with.

The policies have to do with things like creating "the unwelcoming environment Denmark is deliberately creating to deter immigration, especially from cultures/societies deemed to be less compatible with Denmark’s professed liberal progressive values." and "to resist the prospect of Denmark’s traditionally homogeneous society becoming even more multicultural" which is almost solely directed to immigrants from the Middle East while all of the countries are heavily invested in bringing in Ukrainian refugees. Those quotes are from the Danes themselves and similar quotes were found from the other countries.

Which of those quotes are you suggesting the US should be role modeling given our society and our values?

The Nordic wonderland statement was reinforcing how real the immigration problem is. Even progressive countries feel the pressure from their citizens reacting negatively, and their politics are paying attention. The US is not alone. I'll re-quote Bill Maher because it hits perfectly

The HBO star (Bill Maher) then quoted The Atlantic’s David Frum, who warned “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do what liberals won’t.”

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

Specifically, to your bolded question and the Denmark quotes, let me research that to get context and I'll answer in a different post.


Question to you. Do you agree with Passacaglia's statement?

Quote:
And yes, I support citizenship for whoever wants it.

[Edward64]

The policies have to do with things like creating

"the unwelcoming environment Denmark is deliberately creating to deter immigration, especially from cultures/societies deemed to be less compatible with Denmark’s professed liberal progressive values." and

"to resist the prospect of Denmark’s traditionally homogeneous society becoming even more multicultural"

which is almost solely directed to immigrants from the Middle East while all of the countries are heavily invested in bringing in Ukrainian refugees. Those quotes are from the Danes themselves and similar quotes were found from the other countries.

Which of those quotes are you suggesting the US should be role modeling given our society and our values?

I found the below article which I believe both quotes are from below.

The changing politics of immigration in Nordic countries | Mixed Migration Centre

I would not say either as quoted ... but there is some degree of truth in the cultural concerns.

In this recent discussion on legal & illegal immigration, we've not talked about how "excessive" immigration may adversely impact the culture of a country. I know I've mentioned it before in previous immigration discussions (have to search for "burqa") about the impact to culture.

Culture seems to be a tangent from our current discussion, and I do not want to be (often falsely) accused of moving the goal post unilaterally. If you want, happy to get into the discussion in this thread with you. I do think it'll be an interesting discussion.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We will need doctors, but that's a problem we've let lobbyists create to drive up prices. We can fix it fairly quickly but won't. That is not an immigration issue.

I agree we need more doctors (and nurses). Immigration did not cause the problem, immigration will help resolve it (see below).

And wanting more PhDs is fine but it seems kind of silly to be importing them. Just make education more accessible and affordable and you'll create more PhDs too.

Stats show the US is just not keeping up in STEM fields. I think this goes beyond just making education more accessible and affordable. It's a societal/cultural (?) thing that will take time to turnaround ... if ever.

But the PhD thing is just a way to control the ethnic and racial makeup of immigrants. It's not about bringing in more PhDs (why does that even matter?). A system like that would benefit wealthier, whiter nations.

Not how I see it. There are a ton of brown Indian & yellow Chinese MDs, brown & yellow asian nurses, and I am positive there are a ton of yellow PhDs from China. This PhD thing will benefit non-whites more than whites if going by raw numbers.

Admittedly, there won't be as many (yet) brown from south of the border or blacks from Africa, so it is discriminatory towards them because their education base isn't as developed as China or India. But non-white is non-white, increased diversity from China/India/Asia vs South/Africa is still good, right?

As far was why it matters? It builds up our intellectual capital base. It increases the odds that US will stay in the forefront of science, technology, innovation etc. And it will relatively quickly address shortages in some industries like doctors & nurses, chip design & production (yeah, think we can't get a bunch of folks from Taiwan with a promise of US citizenship & easy relocation?) etc. We are falling behind in STEM, we struggle to organically (internally) increase this skillset, so let's "buy" it through immigration.

And there would certainly be restrictions on PhDs from less white countries by claiming they don't meet some accreditation or some subjective metric.

MDs and nurses definitely, no problem if they come over, then be an "resident/associate/assistant" first before getting re-certified.

For other PhDs, companies (and lesser extent, higher education) will hire primarily on need & merit. e.g. AI companies are too busy to discriminate, they want the best.


Just a note for the record. Although I am speaking about PhDs, doctors & nurses here, my position is preference to merit/skills/education based. So, a much broader pool of talent than just PhDs, doctors & nurses.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If we had the political will, it is so easy to increase the skillset part (and I've had this discussion before). We currently have visa categories for skilled talent. We have 460k+ foreign students in 2022/23 for graduate level studies. We have companies urging increase of H1-B (non-immigrant work visas) because demand exceeds the quota limits.

Therefore, greatly increase visa limits and the key clincher ... tell them they will get fast tracked to permanent residents & citizenship if they meet X, Y, Z criteria. Heck, toss in relocation assistance also. There will be a flood of applicants, and you want yellow and non-hispanic brown people, you'll definitely get the asian ones.

Obviously, it'll peter down after the initial rush. But what a big bonus to the future of the US. We'll get so much "intellectual capital" and more population. Create a 10 year plan and execute. We'll be set for (my guess) couple generations.

So you think that a U.S. public that has a huge problem with all the undocumented workers being here even while believing (75%) that the undocumented workers are mostly likely doing jobs that Americans don't want. A U.S. public in which Trump supporters(probably the most fervent opponents of undocumented workers) are more likely to believe that LEGAL immigrants are doing jobs that Americans would like to have (44%) than they think ILLEGAL immigrants are doing jobs that Americans would like to have(37%). You think those people want more highly qualified highly skilled immigrants to come here and take jobs that could be filled by native born Americans or worse yet repl---(this word is kind of sensitive in this context) native born Americans who are doing those jobs right now? You expect those people and/or the people who represent them to have that political will?

Okay, then

Again, that distinction you keep harping on is not really a thing here.

So yes, the Nordics don't necessarily have as big of illegal immigration problem as the US, but they have a (legal) refugee migration issue that their citizens & politicians are coming to realization with.

All the evidence suggest that the Nordics don't have a refugee problem. They have a refugees from the Middle East problem. They have no problem with taking in Ukrainian refugees. The policies are focused on keeping Middle Eastern refugees out of their countries and it is at least partly due to the homogeneous makeup of the country. They are not trying to hide that fact.

Question to you. Do you agree with Passacaglia's statement?

Yes! Why wouldn't I?

My grandmother wanted citizenship and got it.
My parents wanted citizenship and got it.
Aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews? Same
Wife, sister-in-law and their cousin? Yep them too.
Friends and co-workers? Uh huh

I have even been to a few ceremonies where a deceased veteran has received a posthumous citizenship.

If someone wants US citizenship, I want them to follow the link to the 10 Steps of Naturalization on the UCIS webpage and follow all of those steps.

10 Steps to Naturalization | USCIS

If they get to step now and they are close, I will come by and take the corny picture of them holding up their Certificate of Naturalization and their little U.S. flag. I have a good bit of experience doing so.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

So you think that a U.S. public that has a huge problem with all the undocumented workers being here even while believing (75%) that the undocumented workers are mostly likely doing jobs that Americans don't want. A U.S. public in which Trump supporters(probably the most fervent opponents of undocumented workers) are more likely to believe that LEGAL immigrants are doing jobs that Americans would like to have (44%) than they think ILLEGAL immigrants are doing jobs that Americans would like to have(37%). You think those people want more highly qualified highly skilled immigrants to come here and take jobs that could be filled by native born Americans or worse yet repl---(this word is kind of sensitive in this context) native born Americans who are doing those jobs right now? You expect those people and/or the people who represent them to have that political will?

No, I am not at all optimistic there is the political will. I've stated the crux of the problem is Dems want pathway to citizenship for the 11M+ illegals, the GOP do not.

Therefore as President Edward, I want to have a holistic immigration reform. And my compromise (as previous documented) is to have all the non-felon illegal convert to renewable guest workers (non-voting) and increase legal immigration (voting) by giving preference to skillsets/education over, let's say, 10 years.

Okay, then

Again, that distinction you keep harping on is not really a thing here.

If you mean distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, we'll agree to disagree. I contend the US population will be more willing to accept legal immigrants through a structured process than converting the 11M+ illegals to 11M+ legals with voting rights.

All the evidence suggest that the Nordics don't have a refugee problem.

They have a refugees from the Middle East problem.

ME refugees is a subset of all refugees. Therefore, it stands to reason they do have an overall refugee problem?

They have no problem with taking in Ukrainian refugees. The policies are focused on keeping Middle Eastern refugees out of their countries and it is at least partly due to the homogeneous makeup of the country. They are not trying to hide that fact.

I think you are saying that Denmark (let's just focus on Denmark per my earlier caveat) is a racist country and would prefer Ukrainian vs Middle Eastern refugees?

See below stats from AI summary ...

As of 2022, the largest group of refugees in Denmark were from Ukraine, with nearly 33,000 people. The second largest group were Syrians, with fewer than 20,000 people, and the third largest were from Eritrea, with nearly 6,000 people.

In below link, there is a chart of "TOP 5 NATIONALITIES SEEKING ASYLUM IN DENMARK 2019-2023". A fair number are non-Ukrainian.

How many refugees are coming to Denmark

I think the Bill Maher quote applies to Denmark. I mean, if Denmark/Nordics, the paragon of progressive thinking believes they have a problem, then I guess there is a problem. And if you believe Denmark is a racist country, I don't personally believe it, but okay. So?

The HBO star (Bill Maher) then quoted The Atlantic’s David Frum, who warned “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do what liberals won’t.”

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

If someone wants US citizenship, I want them to follow the link to the 10 Steps of Naturalization on the UCIS webpage and follow all of those steps.

10 Steps to Naturalization | USCIS

If they get to step now and they are close, I will come by and take the corny picture of them holding up their Certificate of Naturalization and their little U.S. flag. I have a good bit of experience doing so.

Fine by me. Step 2 indicates the 11M+ illegals are not eligible to become citizens.

But then, the link doesn't talk about how to become a PR which is what citizenship is (primarily) dependent on. If you want the 11M+ illegals to go through the current legal process, I'm good. If Kamala wins and changes the rules, I assume there'll be a fight all the way to SCOTUS, and if Kamala wins, I'm good with accepting the laws.

Yes! Why wouldn't I?

My grandmother wanted citizenship and got it.
My parents wanted citizenship and got it.
Aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews? Same
Wife, sister-in-law and their cousin? Yep them too.
Friends and co-workers? Uh huh

I have even been to a few ceremonies where a deceased veteran has received a posthumous citizenship.

Because, the majority of 11M+ illegals want citizenship. The majority of 158M-160M wanting to come to the US will want citizenship (likely dual). I contend if we open up the US immigration laws and guarantee everyone who applies citizenship, it is unworkable and unwanted.

So, sounds like you do agree with Passacaglia's quote below.

My question to @Passacaglia was predicated on his statement

If so, I'll ask again,

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
In below thread, I answered how I would handle the 11M+ illegals as President.

POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion - Page 88 - Front Office Football Central, see starting #4351

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ (and the 11M+ illegal) adults that want to immigrate?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No, I am not at all optimistic there is the political will. I've stated the crux of the problem is Dems want pathway to citizenship for the 11M+ illegals, the GOP do not.

Therefore as President Edward, I want to have a holistic immigration reform. And my compromise (as previous documented) is to have all the non-felon illegal convert to renewable guest workers (non-voting) and increase legal immigration (voting) by giving preference to skillsets/education over, let's say, 10 years.

Cool answer but I thought we were speaking specifically about increasing legal employment visas. Not sure why you would want to poison that discussion with a call back to the pathway to citizenship for the 11m etc. I will ask the question a different way but first let me post where I got my info from.

Trump, Harris voters mostly say immigrants fill jobs US citizens don’t want | Pew Research Center

You are in luck, we are starting to get more data where there is distinction between legal and illegal immigration so I will include that as well.

Where Trump and Harris Supporters Differ and Align on Immigration | Pew Research Center

Specifically on legal employment immigration. Good news for your argument.

Admitting more high-skilled immigrants is favored by 71% of Trump supporters and 87% of Harris supporters.

Should be a simple increase right? no need for any compromise. No need for a holistic reform though that would be preferred. This is something both sides want especially since it appears that the folks presumably on the left want it more than those on the right. Well...

Trump and Harris supporters are less divided on the levels of legal immigration into the U.S. Nearly half of both Trump and Harris supporters say legal immigration should be kept at its present level – 48% and 44%, respectively.

But support differs when it comes to changing the level of legal immigration into the U.S. A third of Trump supporters (33%) favor decreased legal immigration, and smaller shares (17%) say it should be increased. Meanwhile, about four-in-ten Harris supporters (42%) favor increased legal immigration, with smaller shares favoring decreased immigration levels.

62% of Harris supporters say immigrants living in the country legally make things better for the U.S. economy, compared with 31% of Trump supporters.

57% of Harris supporters say immigrants living in the country legally make things better for science and technological innovation, compared with 33% of Trump supporters.

Notably, a majority of registered voters (62%) say immigrants living in the country legally do not have much effect on crime, with 71% of Harris supporters and 53% of Trump supporters saying so. Still, 36% of Trump supporters say legal immigrants make crime worse.

Sizable shares of Trump supporters (42%) and Harris supporters (52%) say immigrants living in the country legally do not have much effect on public resources such as housing, education or health care.

To be clear, Harris supporters give more support to undocumented immigrants that Trump supporters but we knew that already. No one is shocked by that. However, unless I missed one, every question that was more supportive of legal immigration had more from people who identified as Harris supporters than those who identified as Trump supporters and in certain cases it's not really close.

So once again I ask, who does not have the political will to increase employment visas? Who is less likely to support increasing employment visas?

If you mean distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, we'll agree to disagree. I contend the US population will be more willing to accept legal immigrants through a structured process than converting the 11M+ illegals to 11M+ legals with voting rights.

I'll let the survey speak for itself. I will say that if it does, it is clear that Harris supporters are more likely to be more supportive of such measures.

ME refugees is a subset of all refugees. Therefore, it stands to reason they do have an overall refugee problem?

I think you are saying that Denmark (let's just focus on Denmark per my earlier caveat) is a racist country and would prefer Ukrainian vs Middle Eastern refugees?

When they make laws restricting what all of the refugees wear, then they will have an issue with more than just Middle Eastern refugees. If I wanted to call Denmark racist, I would have done so if I thought that was the case. I did not see anything that specifically said led me to that conclusion but again I did not go that deep. I am not saying that Denmark would prefer Ukrainian vs Middle Eastern refugees. Denmark, through its words and policies, has said that they prefer Ukrainian refugees to their Middle Eastern counterparts.

Because, the majority of 11M+ illegals want citizenship. The majority of 158M-160M wanting to come to the US will want citizenship (likely dual). I contend if we open up the US immigration laws and guarantee everyone who applies citizenship, it is unworkable and unwanted.

I just checked to make sure. Passacaglia did not say anything about opening up U.S. immigration laws. I did not say anything about opening up U.S. immigration laws. I also don't know where you come up with the idea that everyone wanting to come to the US will want citizenship. We have people currently leaving in the US who have no desire to become citizens and have made the call to live and die here without ever being citizens and I don't have an issue with that either. About 48% of all immigrants in the US currently are not citizens and only a third of them are eligible for naturalization. Even the mention of everyone wanting dual citizenship is strange to me. Honestly, I have never heard anyone being concerned about every one immigrating to the US trying to hold dual citizenship. You know who is trying to get dual citizenship in droves? Native born Americans are trying to add citizenship of other countries to the US citizenship!

Americans Are Pursuing Dual Citizenship Now More Than Ever Before - Arton Capital

So for the last time, if someone wants to obtain US citizenship and is willing to go through the process, yes I support them becoming citizens. If they want to become a permanent resident and go through the process, I support them becoming a permanent residents. If they want to just live here without becoming a citizen and/or only stay temporarily before going back to their home country, I support them. If they risked their life to help us fight during a war and are now a marked man woman or child in their home country and they want to come to the US, I support them and their families coming to US and immediately getting US citizenship if that will help protect them and their families' lives. I am sure there are more scenarios that I can't think of right now.

Let me put it another way. If the US could hold its nose and provide former Nazi leaders, scientists and engineers a pathway to permanent residency and US citizenship in the 1940s and 50s, I can hold my nose to provide for the 11m+ undocumented workers to have a pathway to citizenship for making sure I can get fresh fruits and vegetables at my local Publix every week. Check back with me when we reach 100 million new citizens a year, I might change my mind then.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Cool answer but I thought we were speaking specifically about increasing legal employment visas. Not sure why you would want to poison that discussion with a call back to the pathway to citizenship for the 11m etc.

Throughout out this most recent exchange, we've been talking about illegals (11M+) AND legal immigration. You are right, when I used the term "political will", it was in reference to legal immigration.

However, in a prior passage, I said below in reference to illegal immigration ...

The law is the law ... and is definitely subject to change like when political expediency decides otherwise. Sure, there are things subject to interpretation and there are executive orders, but as it stands right now, it is a crime to come over illegally ... regardless of whether or not politics gets in the way.

You seem to say that laws change. I agree with that. So? Law change all the time depending on who is in the Presidency, Congress and SCOTUS. So until the laws change, we follow what is the law now.

So no, not "poison the discussion", just continuing it.

I will ask the question a different way but first let me post where I got my info from.

Trump, Harris voters mostly say immigrants fill jobs US citizens don’t want | Pew Research Center

You are in luck, we are starting to get more data where there is distinction between legal and illegal immigration so I will include that as well.

Where Trump and Harris Supporters Differ and Align on Immigration | Pew Research Center

Specifically on legal employment immigration. Good news for your argument.

Yay. Not enough though, but guess its a good trend.

Should be a simple increase right? no need for any compromise. No need for a holistic reform though that would be preferred. This is something both sides want especially since it appears that the folks presumably on the left want it more than those on the right. Well...

To be clear, Harris supporters give more support to undocumented immigrants that Trump supporters but we knew that already. No one is shocked by that. However, unless I missed one, every question that was more supportive of legal immigration had more from people who identified as Harris supporters than those who identified as Trump supporters and in certain cases it's not really close.

So once again I ask, who does not have the political will to increase employment visas? Who is less likely to support increasing employment visas?

I've answered previously. Both sides share in the lack of movement in a holistic immigration reform. I've also said that no problem in assigning "more blame" to GOP than Dems (I think I said 30-70 or 40-60).

But to your question on specifically increasing employment visas .... good question, let me know when the Dems produce an immigration bill with that only one proposal on increasing employment visas?

You won't find it. And we know why. Politics is much more complicated than that. With broader immigration reform or even one that is primarily focused on border security, there are many other points/proposals to consider which results in needed negotiations and ultimately, compromise.

And just to head it off ... sure the Dems led the charge on a border bill for the Ukraine bill last year and this year, and the GOP killed it. But then, The GOP proposed their version of the border bill back in summer of 2022 and the Dems Senate killed it. So yeah, both sides.

I'll let the survey speak for itself. I will say that if it does, it is clear that Harris supporters are more likely to be more supportive of such measures.

Yes, no problem in agreeing Dems are more supportive of legal AND illegal immigration.

When they make laws restricting what all of the refugees wear, then they will have an issue with more than just Middle Eastern refugees. If I wanted to call Denmark racist, I would have done so if I thought that was the case. I did not see anything that specifically said led me to that conclusion but again I did not go that deep. I am not saying that Denmark would prefer Ukrainian vs Middle Eastern refugees. Denmark, through its words and policies, has said that they prefer Ukrainian refugees to their Middle Eastern counterparts.

Demark has accepted a lot of Ukrainian & ME refugees (see my prior post).

But so I am clear, you are saying Denmark is not racist (e.g. my definition includes believing one is born inherently superior). But you are saying Denmark has now become prejudicial/bigoted against ME refugees. Fine, I can agree with that.

But so what? If Denmark was racist, the world/we can find common ground and condemn Denmark. But if Denmark is not racist, then name me one country that is not prejudicial/bigoted against one group of people or another re: immigration? Or in other words ... it is normal. What is your point of bringing it up (e.g. the 2 negative anti-refugee statements from Danish politics)?

[Edward64]

I just checked to make sure. Passacaglia did not say anything about opening up U.S. immigration laws. I did not say anything about opening up U.S. immigration laws.

The statement in question is you and him agreeing to below when we were talking about illegal (and legal) immigration.

My question to @Passacaglia was predicated on his statement

Here's my rationale ...

1) Currently, the US does NOT support citizenship for whoever wants it (legal or illegal)
2) As President miami_fan/passacaglia, you support citizenship for whoever wants it (legal or illegal)
3) Therefore, for this to happen, you would need to "opening up US immigration laws".

Question - if 1-2 is true, but you say 3 is not true, then how else would giving "citizenship for whoever wants it" happen?

I also don't know where you come up with the idea that everyone wanting to come to the US will want citizenship.

Not everyone but majority. Other than for tourism, seems pretty logical assumption to me under current circumstances, it's Occam's Razor. There are so many benefits to having it (and US allows dual citizenship). And even more so, if President miami_fan was to support anyone (legal, illegal, all over the world) who wants it to become a US citizen.

We have people currently leaving in the US who have no desire to become citizens and have made the call to live and die here without ever being citizens and I don't have an issue with that either.

About 48% of all immigrants in the US currently are not citizens and only a third of them are eligible for naturalization.

Sure, there are always some exceptions. There'll probably be more progressives leaving if Trump wins. Obviously can't prove it (no polls) but we do have 158M-160M that pick US as first choice of country to come and live permanently.

Although, there are no specific polls that I could find, just indicative data points

As of 2023, there were an estimated 12.7 million lawful permanent residents (LPRs), also known as green card holders, in the United States. In 2023, almost 1,173,000 people became LPRs, with 52% of them already in the country. The top countries of birth for new LPRs were Mexico, Cuba, and India.

In fiscal year 2023, 878,500 lawful permanent residents (LPRs) became U.S. citizens through naturalization. This was a 9% decrease from the previous year, when 969,400 immigrants became citizens. However, it was a 40% increase from 2020, when 628,300 immigrants became citizens.

Although not apples-to-apples (5+ year wait complicates the calculus), seems to be a pretty high conversion rate to me if taken at face value.

So yeah, there are many impediments to citizenship (5 years in the US, backlogs, maybe lose home passport because no dual citizenship, lack of language skills etc.) but make it more easy for them, IMO even more permanent residents will want convert to citizens.

Even the mention of everyone wanting dual citizenship is strange to me. Honestly, I have never heard anyone being concerned about every one immigrating to the US trying to hold dual citizenship. You know who is trying to get dual citizenship in droves? Native born Americans are trying to add citizenship of other countries to the US citizenship!

No, it's not a big deal that I know of. But it helps, it's a benefit for the immigrant to maintain both if home/US allows it. But it is on my mind per an old quote ...

11) I don't agree with US allowing dual citizenship. Probably a small matter in the big scheme of things but it eats at me. I understand US citizens benefit from this also from other countries (e.g. Canada)

So for the last time, if someone wants to obtain US citizenship and is willing to go through the process, yes I support them becoming citizens. If they want to become a permanent resident and go through the process, I support them becoming a permanent residents. If they want to just live here without becoming a citizen and/or only stay temporarily before going back to their home country, I support them. If they risked their life to help us fight during a war and are now a marked man woman or child in their home country and they want to come to the US, I support them and their families coming to US and immediately getting US citizenship if that will help protect them and their families' lives. I am sure there are more scenarios that I can't think of right now.

I agree with all of that except the bolded. It seems you are okay with anyone going through the legal process to become PR and citizen. I'm good with that, that's what I want.

To be clear, you are saying you would let anyone come to the US, stay, work etc? Or are you saying only those that go through the legal process of getting a work visa? Because if its the former, then you are definitely "opening up US immigration laws".

Check back with me when we reach 100 million new citizens a year, I might change my mind then.

So I take it you won't attempt to answer the question below?

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
In below thread, I answered how I would handle the 11M+ illegals as President.

POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion - Page 88 - Front Office Football Central, see starting #4351

The question ...

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ (and the 11M+ illegal) adults that want to immigrate? or (newly added) ... anyone if they want to just live/work here without becoming a citizen

[miami_fan]

Throughout out this most recent exchange, we've been talking about illegals (11M+) AND legal immigration. You are right, when I used the term "political will", it was in reference to legal immigration.

However, in a prior passage, I said below in reference to illegal immigration ...

Well I am discussing political will in regards to legal immigration. I will leave the illegal immigration discussion for anyone else.

Originally Posted by Edward64

But to your question on specifically increasing employment visas .... good question, let me know when the Dems produce an immigration bill with that only one proposal on increasing employment visas?

You won't find it. And we know why. Politics is much more complicated than that. With broader immigration reform or even one that is primarily focused on border security, there are many other points/proposals to consider which results in needed negotiations and ultimately, compromise.

You are correct. Nothing that just involves employment based visas but...

What Happened To The Bills On Employment-Based Immigration?

Introduction

In February 2021, the U.S. Citizenship Act (H.R. 1177), developed by the Biden administration, was introduced in Congress (Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38] (Introduced 02/18/2021)). The bill contained many immigration provisions and would have put an end to the employment-based immigrant backlog within 10 years. It included a higher annual green card limit, eliminated the per-country limit, provided permanent residence for those waiting with an approved immigrant petition for 10 years and excluded dependents from being counted against the annual limit. (See here.) It also would have exempted individuals with Ph.D.s in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields from numerical limits.

Execution

Due to GOP opposition and the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate, the U.S. Citizenship Act turned out to be a messaging or placeholder bill that did not move in Congress. To obtain green card relief, a different measure would need to become law.

Introduction

The best opportunity for employment-based immigration looked like legislation aimed at enhancing U.S. competitiveness in semiconductors. On February 4, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the America COMPETES Act 222 to 210. The bill contained several immigration provisions but garnered only one Republican vote. In June 2021, the Senate passed a similar bill without any immigration measures.

The House bill created an exemption from annual green card limits and backlogs for foreign nationals with a Ph.D. in STEM fields and those with a master’s degree “in a critical industry,” such as semiconductors. The bill also included Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) LIKE Act to give foreign-born entrepreneurs an opportunity to earn lawful permanent residence. A recent NFAP report on immigrant founders of billion-dollar companies concluded many innovations only become useful through entrepreneurship.

During a House-Senate conference committee, Rep. Lofgren urged the Senate to accept the House’s immigrant measures. The Biden administration, businesses and universities wanted to see, at minimum, the exemption for individuals with Ph.D.s in STEM fields become law.

The exemption for STEM Ph.D.s was likely doomed the moment Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) appointed Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) to the bill’s conference committee. McConnell gave Grassley, the ranking Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a veto, in effect, over any immigration provision. Over several months, he exercised that veto and no group of Senate Republicans stepped forward to prevent it.

In June 2022, Grassley asserted he was against including immigration measures in a non-immigration bill. Critics pointed out Grassley had no problem, indeed lauded, including a restrictive measure on EB-5 immigrant investor visas in a non-immigration bill only a few months earlier (March 2022). It appeared evident that Grassley opposed any liberalization of U.S. immigration laws, no matter how beneficial economists and others believed a specific provision would be for the country and claimed a procedural reason.

Senate Democrats approached Grassley with iterations of the Ph.D. STEM provision, but he refused to budge, according to sources. He did not vote for final passage or the motion to proceed to the bill on the Senate floor (a 64 to 34 vote) but got his way on the legislation. The final bill included no measures to exempt Ph.D.s in STEM fields from green card limits or any other significant positive immigration provision. (The legislation was H.R. 4346, renamed the CHIPS Act of 2022.)

House and Senate Democrats and the Biden administration have supported or proposed several bills and measures to reduce the employment-based green card backlogs and exempt highly skilled foreign nationals from immigration quotas. Senate Democrats did not sacrifice a chance to pass the CHIPS Act after Sen. Grassley opposed including a STEM Ph.D. exemption.

Republicans in Congress in a position to influence legislative outcomes are now opposing any positive measures on legal immigration. As one executive of a leading technology company told me, “If there are people in Congress who aren’t going to support more green cards for Ph.D.s in STEM fields, what will they support?”

...the leftist mouthpiece that is Forbes Magazine, seems to think that there was a chance to improve legal employment based immigration and well I will let the last paragraph speak for itself.

But so what? If Denmark was racist, the world/we can find common ground and condemn Denmark. But if Denmark is not racist, then name me one country that is not prejudicial/bigoted against one group of people or another re: immigration?

You want us to go back to doing stuff like this?!

The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They Were Nazi Spies | Smithsonian

What is your point of bringing it up (e.g. the 2 negative anti-refugee statements from Danish politics)?

The statements provided a line of reasoning for what the Danes have chosen to do for their country that was based on their more homogeneous population and their values. I don't believe those lines of reasoning fit with our more diverse population and our values. Because I don't think they fit with our more diverse population and our values, I don't think the U.S. should be role modeling these policies or use these countries as a example for us to do the same here.

Here's my rationale ...

1) Currently, the US does NOT support citizenship for whoever wants it (legal or illegal)
2) As President miami_fan/passacaglia, you support citizenship for whoever wants it (legal or illegal)
3) Therefore, for this to happen, you would need to "opening up US immigration laws".

Question - if 1-2 is true, but you say 3 is not true, then how else would giving "citizenship for whoever wants it" happen?

Can you please explain what you mean when you say "the US does not support citizenship?" Maybe that is what is not clear. Do you mean if I support the government handing out certificates of naturalization as people cross the border or move through customs and not after going through the steps of naturalization? If that is what you are talking about, then no I don't support that. But I am not making it impossible for someone to go through those steps just because. And neither does the US government.

Not everyone but majority. Other than for tourism, seems pretty logical assumption to me under current circumstances, it's Occam's Razor. There are so many benefits to having it (and US allows dual citizenship). And even more so, if President miami_fan was to support anyone (legal, illegal, all over the world) who wants it to become a US citizen.

And yet the number is the number. But let's say that is the case. Why are you suggesting that we need to stop allowing people to become U.S. citizens in FY 26, FY36 etc. That is the American dream.

Although not apples-to-apples (5+ year wait complicates the calculus), seems to be a pretty high conversion rate to me if taken at face value.

So yeah, there are many impediments to citizenship (5 years in the US, backlogs, maybe lose home passport because no dual citizenship, lack of language skills etc.) but make it more easy for them, IMO even more permanent residents will want convert to citizens.

Those are not impediments, those are requirements. The requirements for citizenship. If a person is a LPR, wants to become a citizen, and fulfills the requirements just like EVERYONE ELSE has for x number of years, no one should be putting another layer of requirements or putting any more barriers in place to prevent that. We've done that shameful BS already.

I agree with all of that except the bolded. It seems you are okay with anyone going through the legal process to become PR and citizen. I'm good with that, that's what I want.

To be clear, you are saying you would let anyone come to the US, stay, work etc? Or are you saying only those that go through the legal process of getting a work visa? Because if its the former, then you are definitely "opening up US immigration laws".

I am only talking about the legal process. I will only ever talk about the legal process. I am saying that I will let ANYONE that goes through the legal process in place to immigrate to the US. I also believe that if we actually opened up the immigration laws(not open borders) to make the immigration process less nonsensical, we as a country would be better off.

So I take it you won't attempt to answer the question below?

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ (and the 11M+ illegal) adults that want to immigrate? or (newly added) ... anyone if they want to just live/work here without becoming a citizen

I have already spoken on the 11M+ that are here but I can do it again. Actually I will engage in some bipartisanship myself and let someone I don't usually see eye to eye with make the case.

- YouTube


The 158M+ that want to immigrate would be handled just like everyone. If we maintain the pace of calendar year 2023 of 1.6 million legal immigrants, it will be another 98.75 years before they all get here.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Well I am discussing political will in regards to legal immigration. I will leave the illegal immigration discussion for anyone else.

Fine, we can shift and going forward, only talk about legal immigration.

But for the record because there are some that think I change the goalposts, your posts in this recent discussion starting a page back reflect we were talking about legal & illegal immigration.

You are correct. Nothing that just involves employment based visas but...

What Happened To The Bills On Employment-Based Immigration?

I won't bother responding to the other quotes but stick on HR 1177 above. The others are similar. As indicated, this is not a single, specific bill (employment based visas), HR 1177 included a bunch of stuff ... including pathing to citizenship.

The very first line in congressional summary of HR 1177.

This bill establishes a path to citizenship for certain undocumented individuals.

I have stated previously ...

No, I am not at all optimistic there is the political will. I've stated the crux of the problem is Dems want pathway to citizenship for the 11M+ illegals, the GOP do not.

Politics is much more complicated than that. With broader immigration reform or even one that is primarily focused on border security, there are many other points/proposals to consider which results in needed negotiations and ultimately, compromise.

You want us to go back to doing stuff like this?!

The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They Were Nazi Spies | Smithsonian

No. We could easily have absorbed several hundred thousands. US pop in 1945 was about 138M.

But if hypothetically, 11M+ wanted to come over. Or 158M+, yes I would certainly create quotas with whatever categories, and control the immigration.

The statements provided a line of reasoning for what the Danes have chosen to do for their country that was based on their more homogeneous population and their values. I don't believe those lines of reasoning fit with our more diverse population and our values. Because I don't think they fit with our more diverse population and our values, I don't think the U.S. should be role modeling these policies or use these countries as a example for us to do the same here.

I can't pinpoint a specific time (and don't want to research it) but it stands to reason there was a time in the US that we had a more homogeneous white population. I strongly suspect if that was today, you would be calling out racism. I'm okay with what the Danes are doing but IMO you are giving the Danes an easy out.

The Nordic countries have been upheld as the paragon of progressiveness. If they have come to this point where there are real right-wing pressure on immigration, IMO it tells you that unbridled immigration is not the answer. And that it's not just "racist" Americans.

You imply "culture & values" come into play (along with economics etc.), and I agree with you. I think it's normal for countries to assess all the pros & cons, assess what is best for the country, be selective (and prejudicial) and control legal & illegal immigration.

Can you please explain what you mean when you say "the US does not support citizenship?" Maybe that is what is not clear. Do you mean if I support the government handing out certificates of naturalization as people cross the border or move through customs and not after going through the steps of naturalization? If that is what you are talking about, then no I don't support that. But I am not making it impossible for someone to go through those steps just because. And neither does the US government.

Yeah, pretty much the bolded. So when you say you agree with below ...

And yes, I support citizenship for whoever wants it.

The US does not give out US citizenship for anyone that wants it. So good to know that you do not support that.

You support a person to be able to apply, and if eligible, get permanent residency? And then support that person to become naturalized through the legal process?

If this is true, then we have no disagreement with key words being "eligible" and "legal". Legal process also implies the country quotas are accepted. There is already a legal process for all non-felon illegals to go through. Essentially, leave the US and if eligible, apply to become a PR (and then eventually Citizenship). It's not impossible.

But, I suspect you want some thing "more" for the 11M+ illegals, not just the current legal process.

Question - no need to answer as it is tangential and just a thought exercise ... but I would be interested in knowing how President miami_fan would go about implementing the below? Assume you own Congress for the next 2 years, what policies would you change, what would you implement?

And yes, I support citizenship for whoever wants it.

And yet the number is the number. But let's say that is the case. Why are you suggesting that we need to stop allowing people to become U.S. citizens in FY 26, FY36 etc. That is the American dream.

I have proposed the number is 11M+ illegals (I think we both agree) and 158M+ (which may be in dispute, but note that is adults, have to add +kids). Using my numbers, you are talking about increasing US citizenship population by approx 50% in 10 years. Name me one country that has increased their citizenship population by +50% in 10 years?

(You have some ME countries increasing workers but they don't have voting rights, so not same thing)

I fully embrace the American dream for immigrants becoming citizens legally. But I certainly don't want to break the country and American dream for current PR/citizens. Hence, we need controlled (and selective) immigration which 158M+ in 10 years is not.

Those are not impediments, those are requirements. The requirements for citizenship. If a person is a LPR, wants to become a citizen, and fulfills the requirements just like EVERYONE ELSE has for x number of years, no one should be putting another layer of requirements or putting any more barriers in place to prevent that. We've done that shameful BS already.

Requirements can be impediments, not mutually exclusive. And backlogs are certainly not a "requirement".

I am only talking about the legal process. I will only ever talk about the legal process. I am saying that I will let ANYONE that goes through the legal process in place to immigrate to the US. I also believe that if we actually opened up the immigration laws(not open borders) to make the immigration process less nonsensical, we as a country would be better off.

We've been talking about legal & illegal immigration. If you are stating that illegal immigration should follow the legal process, then we have no disagreement. And going forward, will accept we are only talking about legal immigration.

Note that the current legal process does not provide for a way for illegals to become PR/citizenships (other than arguably a few examples like DACA, birthright citizenship) while still in US. They have to leave the country, apply and if eligible, get accepted as PR and then naturalized years later. I'm okay with that.

I have already spoken on the 11M+ that are here but I can do it again. Actually I will engage in some bipartisanship myself and let someone I don't usually see eye to eye with make the case.

- YouTube

Not a good example. I'm pretty sure most (other than the 3M illegals) will say the bill was a failure. It did allow the amnesty to happen but didn't do the other stuff that was to stop it from happening again ... and here we are, going through it all over again but this time with 11M+ illegals.

But hey, one back at you. Here's Bill Clinton ... short clip but see 50 secs in for "we are a country of immigrants, but also a nation of laws"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA

The 158M+ that want to immigrate would be handled just like everyone. If we maintain the pace of calendar year 2023 of 1.6 million legal immigrants, it will be another 98.75 years before they all get here.

Fine. Good to know your definition of "support citizenship that wants it" means support letting anyone go through the current legal process of applying, determining eligibility, getting PR and then citizenship. No unconstrained immigration, no fast track for illegals becoming citizenship (they have to leave and reapply). Absolutely, no problem with that.

[miami_fan]

I was in the process of responding to everything in that post and stopped. I realized(way too late I know) that I was falling into the same old immigration discussion that I know we have had as a country for hundreds of years. I look at the data, all the requests for evidence (a lot of which was questioned/ignored), all the back and forth excuse making and looking at all of it. I think I summed all of it up back it January.

FWIW, I don't think this is necessarily broken down as a battle between both parties. History tells us that despite what is proclaimed on the Statue of Liberty, Americans as a whole are not really here for accepting your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, he wretched refuse of your teeming shore. or these, the homeless, tempest-tossed. I mean we will take those that fit those descriptors and those that fit the opposite of those descriptors at some point but historically we have consistently taken steps to ensure that is not the case. I am not saying this thinking is exclusive to any particular race, ethnicity, etc in this country. I am not saying that other countries don't act in a similar fashion. I say all that to say I don't see either party as necessarily exclusively pro or exclusively anti immigration.

Nope, my point is immigration legal or illegal is accepted right up until the point we don’t want immigrants flowing into the country or the wrong immigrants are flowing into the country. We usually reach that point we feel the government might be treating the immigrants with too much like the rest of us, we think the immigrants are making too much progress for our liking or we just get scared of the foreigners.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I say all that to say I don't see either party as necessarily exclusively pro or exclusively anti immigration.

The degree & positions change some over time but I generally agree with this.

Nope, my point is immigration legal or illegal is accepted right up until the point we don’t want immigrants flowing into the country or the wrong immigrants are flowing into the country. We usually reach that point we feel the government might be treating the immigrants with too much like the rest of us, we think the immigrants are making too much progress for our liking or we just get scared of the foreigners.

I disagree with this. The people of the United States are pretty welcoming of immigration. Much more so legal and less so illegal.

One way or another, we're going to get some sort of immigration reform the next 4 years. Much better odds of a "grand bargain" like the Dignity Act with Kamala. Much better odds of a bunch of executive orders & court challenges with Trump.

[Edward64]

(Start of the Trump Immigration reform)



What Trump will/may do.

Access to this page has been denied

“All of the secure border policies that we had in place with President Trump, he can simply flip the switch and put those back in place just like they were before. They didn’t need an act of Congress,” senior campaign adviser Jason Miller said Wednesday on NBC’s “Today.”

At nearly every campaign rally this cycle, the former president’s prepared remarks included the line: “On day one, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history.”
:
Carrying out such a massive deportation operation, which Trump has said will (key phrase) target those in the country illegally and particularly those with criminal records, will be a massive logistical lift. He has said he will rely on local police departments for assistance, but the effort will require extensive coordination with federal agencies and would likely face resistance from some local jurisdictions.

Other actions Trump may take immediately would likely rely on executive authority. Trump has vowed to sign an executive order “on day one” to stop federal agencies from giving automatic U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. An effort to end birthright citizenship would face certain legal challenges.

The president-elect would also likely resume construction of a wall along the southern border, something the Biden administration halted, and Trump could also look to reimpose policies like the “Remain in Mexico” program, which forced potential asylum-seekers to stay in Mexico to wait out the results of their cases in U.S. immigration court.

Birthright will definitely be a court battle.

[Edward64]

More tidbits

Trump’s mass deportation plans would be costly. Here’s why | CNN Politics

“If you’re in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder,” former Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Tom Homan said as he warned that no one would be off the table.

Trump adviser Stephen Miller said the military would be involved.

Trump adviser Stephen Miller has said a mass deportation operation would require officials to build massive facilities for immigrant detentions that could hold some 70,000 people — more than 10 times the capacity of the seven soft-sided facilities in the 2023 budget. Miller has described the plan to build new detention space as “greater than any national infrastructure project we’ve done to date.”

And if deportations were increased to the level Trump has proposed, detention space isn’t the only thing that would need to grow, Sandweg says. The ICE workforce would need to dramatically increase in size.

“You are talking about an increase of five or six times in the size of ICE operations. … hiring thousands of new officers, building tens of thousands of new detention beds,” he says.

Asked by “60 Minutes” whether there’s a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families, Homan offered a swift response.

“Of course there is,” he said. “Families can be deported together.”

[flere-imsaho]

So... concentration camps and gestapo.

[Edward64]

... for illegals.

Hopefully the detention centers won't be like real concentration camps where there was gassing/shooting the illegals, or starvation, or forced labor, or beatings & rapes, or plucking out gold teeth etc.



We can conclude what Bill Maher predicted has, somewhat, come to pass. Pretty much applies to many other western liberal/progressive European countries and Canada.

The HBO star (Bill Maher) then quoted The Atlantic’s David Frum, who warned “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do what liberals won’t.”

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

[flere-imsaho]

"Hopefully"

Edit: IIRC, the previous iteration of Trump's immigration detention centers (a.k.a. concentration camps) involved people sitting in non-AC tents during summer with outside ambient temperatures well over 100. But hey, as long as they're not actually gassing or shooting people, I guess it's OK.

[flere-imsaho]

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

Herein lies the problem for Democrats. Multiple industries rely wholly on undocumented labor. Were we to magically remove all "illegals" tomorrow, both the hospitality and agriculture industries, to pick just two, would collapse overnight.

Try explaining that to voters.

The correct electoral solution is to saying you're going to fix the problem, massage the numbers, maybe do some high-profile but ultimately ineffective stuff, but not take that labor away.

But then you'd have the Rainmaker wing of the party accuse you of being corporatist slaves and taking a pass on the next election.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Edit: IIRC, the previous iteration of Trump's immigration detention centers (a.k.a. concentration camps) involved people sitting in non-AC tents during summer with outside ambient temperatures well over 100. But hey, as long as they're not actually gassing or shooting people, I guess it's OK.

Some bad things happened in those detention centers. And it's definitely not Club Med (or a Mar-a-Largo). But to the level of concentration camps? Nah

But then, maybe its your definition of concentration camp. Always good to define to level set. Personally, I think of the WW2 ones.

[Mota]

In Canada we just lowered the number of temporary foreign workers allowed, because the people have turned against immigration. So the next thing that happens, you get stories by restaurant owners that say "Welcome to the $30 hamburger".

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

... for illegals.

Hopefully the detention centers won't be like real concentration camps where there was gassing/shooting the illegals, or starvation, or forced labor, or beatings & rapes, or plucking out gold teeth etc.



We can conclude what Bill Maher predicted has, somewhat, come to pass. Pretty much applies to many other western liberal/progressive European countries and Canada.

I noticed that you did not insert "illegal" into that Maher quote. Surely, you still believe that is the only kind of immigration he was talking about, right?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I noticed that you did not insert "illegal" into that Maher quote. Surely, you still believe that is the only kind of immigration he was talking about, right?

I thought it was self evident? Enforcing border would primarily allude to illegals?

The HBO star (Bill Maher) then quoted The Atlantic’s David Frum, who warned “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do what liberals won’t.”

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I noticed that you did not insert "illegal" into that Maher quote. Surely, you still believe that is the only kind of immigration he was talking about, right?

The Springfield immigrants they were accusing of eating the cats and dogs were legal immigrants. They've already said the quiet words out loud.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mota

The Springfield immigrants they were accusing of eating the cats and dogs were legal immigrants. They've already said the quiet words out loud.

I will concede that some group of "legal immigrants" will be caught up in the upcoming battle.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Take it FWIW.

I am saying that Trump wants to get rid of illegal immigrants. He has definitely said this.

The debate is whether Trump wants to get rid of legal immigrants.

Based on some stuff he has said, he does for specific groups. Haitians have legal status, asylum seekers have legal status and cases like that. He has said this so no doubt he wants to do something here.

But do the vast majority of legal immigrants & naturalized citizens have to worry? Not in my opinion.

The real question, which is from JPhillips original comment concerning his daughter, does he need to worry about Trump doing something to legal, foreign born, naturalized citizens. I see little evidence of this. I don't think he has to worry about his daughter.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I will concede that some group of "legal immigrants" will be caught up in the upcoming battle.

But do the vast majority of legal immigrants & naturalized citizens have to worry? Not in my opinion.

Actively wishing harm on completely innocent people so that you can feel better about immigration is quite the take.

[Flasch186]

Don’t worry

Your legal is actually legal

Yeah that’s comforting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Actively wishing harm on completely innocent people so that you can feel better about immigration is quite the take.

I guess you can interpret it that way.

But then, you and I live in different worlds, see and interpret things differently (Source: Aug 2030). And your interpretations (and people like you re: illegal immigration) is why we have Trump now.

Maybe consider you are out of the mainstream, your beliefs have swung to far left? Consider maybe other people have it right and you are too extreme? Economy and illegal immigration were the Top-2 issues for those that voted Trump in and it wasn't near as close as the electoral college would seem.

[Ghost Econ]

I feel like I've read about people saying the same things 90 years ago. Maybe we should require people to read Richard Evans... although they'd probably agree with the wrong parts.

[miami_fan]

No this part

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

Anyway, I wonder if they are going to bring back any of these policies from the first term.

The Story Of How Trump Officials Tried To End H-1B Visas

A couple of notes to ponder

The Cruz-Sessions bill would have required anyone with a bachelor’s or master’s degree – 90% of current H-1B visa holders – from working in America in H-1B status until they had first worked for 10 years outside of the United States. The bill eliminated Optional Practical Training (OPT) for international students, which allows students to work in the United States, usually after graduating. (A never-released Trump administration regulation would have eliminated or restricted OPT.) The bill would set a high minimum salary ($110,000 a year) for H-1B visa holders, foreshadowing the administration’s October 2020 Department of Labor (DOL) wage rule. The bill also sought to make it easier for U.S. workers to file lawsuits against companies for discrimination, years before the Trump administration filed what the Wall Street Journal called a “dubious” lawsuit against Facebook for allegedly discriminating against U.S. workers.

A minimum salary of $110,000 a year?! What exactly is the minimum salary for native born workers in the same field? Is this what those folks voted for?

For the IT folks,

-The “Implementation of March 31, 2017 Memo, Rescission of the December 22, 2000 ‘Guidance memo on H-1B computer-related-positions’” instructed USCIS adjudicators, in practice, to deny H-1B petitions for many occupations because the Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook states that not everyone hired in those occupations required a bachelor’s degree. The document remained secret from the public until USCIS released it and others to the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) after settling a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

The job in question is a computer programmer. Why would you hire someone with a bachelor or masters in computer programming from elsewhere (again, for a minimum of $110,000) when someone with an associates and a bit of experience will do?

“Losses in federal court cases that declared administration actions to be unlawful forced Trump officials to change restrictive immigration policies and resulted in dramatic improvements in H-1B denial rates for companies,” according to an analysis by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). “The denial rate for new H-1B petitions for initial employment was 1.5% in the fourth quarter of FY 2020, much lower than the denial rate of 21% through the first three quarters of FY 2020.”

So the companies took the administration to court before and they can do it again. However, there are and will be more than a few Trump loyalists on the federal benches this time around so we shall see.

And finally...

On H-1B visas, the Trump administration came into office like a lion and exited like a lamb. The administration’s policies inflicted much damage over the past four years, say companies and attorneys. While Donald Trump often said he wanted “merit-based” immigration, the war waged against companies, international students and H-1B visa holders during his administration showed the president and his appointed team had little interest in admitting even the most highly skilled foreign nationals to America.

I guess it is possible that Trump and his LEGAL immigration people could have softened in the second time around.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

No this part

Don't understand what you are trying to say? That it is racist to be concerned about legal & illegal immigration?

And I don't understand how H1-B quotes proves your position because

The H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant visa that allows foreign professionals to work in the United States in specialty occupations for a temporary period.

So, because we have confusion in prior discussion where I thought we were clearly talking about legal & illegal immigration, and you thought we were just talking about legal immigration, clarify for me. Are we talking about

1) Legal immigration
2) Illegal immigration
3) Legal but non-immigrant (visas)

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Edward64

... for illegals.

Hopefully the detention centers won't be like real concentration camps where there was gassing/shooting the illegals, or starvation, or forced labor, or beatings & rapes, or plucking out gold teeth etc.



We can conclude what Bill Maher predicted has, somewhat, come to pass. Pretty much applies to many other western liberal/progressive European countries and Canada.

Unfortunately some of the loud voices on the far left have decided Maher isn't really a liberal due to his comments like the one you quoted.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I guess you can interpret it that way.

Anyone with a passing understanding of the English language will interpret it that way.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Herein lies the problem for Democrats. Multiple industries rely wholly on undocumented labor. Were we to magically remove all "illegals" tomorrow, both the hospitality and agriculture industries, to pick just two, would collapse overnight.

My wife and I went to a local diner the other night -- Saturday, a little before what we thought would be the dinner rush. Plenty of seats available, but we had to wait...20 minutes to get seated? There was also a paper on the front window advising that normal hours had been cut back due to "their current circumstances." I have no idea what those might be, but it did seem like they were running with a reduced crew. Which makes it harder to turn over customers (and some folks did indeed opt not to wait, because it's not like there aren't other dining options in the immediate vicinity).

So yeah, take away more workers and you'll see more of this. (Back to pandemic dining levels!) Might not be so great for these small businesses, which most non-chain places are.

Of course if 75% of the government workforce is chopped and AI is going to replace everyone in IT, I guess there will be something for us to do?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Herein lies the problem for Democrats. Multiple industries rely wholly on undocumented labor. Were we to magically remove all "illegals" tomorrow, both the hospitality and agriculture industries, to pick just two, would collapse overnight.

Try explaining that to voters.

They wouldn't collapse, but for sure they would be hit and changed significantly.

I'd argue that looking at this set of facts and saying it's ok to let it continue is every bit as racist as the worst of the anti-immigration rhetoric. I think it's immoral to have reliance on undocumented labor be acceptable and eliminating that situation is worth whatever it costs, full stop.

I understand ofc why this doesn't happen from a practical political POV. But given this reality, hand-wringing about who gets punished under various other immigration approaches is an incredibly hypocritical and hollow accusation that gets a hard pass from me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Unfortunately some of the loud voices on the far left have decided Maher isn't really a liberal due to his comments like the one you quoted.

True. To his defense, he does say below.

I don't agree with everything he says but on immigration, I do agree.

“I haven’t turned. Yes, people have said to me, ‘You made fun of the left more than you used to,’ and guilty, I have, because the left has changed,” Maher told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria during a sit-down interview.

Maher, the host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” admitted in the interview that both the left and the right have transformed. But, he argued, the Republican Party is “even worse” than the Democrats.

“I mean, the right doesn’t believe in democracy anymore. I mean, they’ve thrown their lot in with a sociopath named Donald Trump, who only thinks elections count when we win,” Maher said, referring to former President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of election fraud in the 2020 election. “OK, well, that’s worse.”

“But it’s not like the left hasn’t changed also,” he added. “So I’m going to call it out wherever I see it.”

Maher then went on to list issues he sees with “gender and race and free speech” as well as communism, border patrol and police abolition efforts.

“No, it’s not that I’ve gotten old, it’s that your ideas are stupid,” he said.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Anyone with a passing understanding of the English language will interpret it that way.

Sure, you can take specific tidbits of a position and extrapolate it to the extreme.

But as you've shown as someone who thinks "Family Rights in Education" actually means "Don't Say Gay", I'd have to disagree and say the reading comprehension challenge is on your end.

Aug 2030. Let's see if you and family are shipped off to "concentration camps". No excuse now if it doesn't happen, and no excuse for me if it does happen. A simple mea culpa "I was wrong" no buts.


Question - But let's go further on your concerns about concentration camps. Care to define what you mean or was it just a hyperbolic dramatic response? Here's mine.

But then, maybe its your definition of concentration camp. Always good to define to level set. Personally, I think of the WW2 ones.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They wouldn't collapse, but for sure they would be hit and changed significantly.

Spoiler

Oh look, a real world example: Crackdown on illegal immigrants left crops rotting in Georgia fields, ag chief tells US lawmakers - al.com

As for the hospitality industry, if you've worked in hotels or restaurants you know what would happen if they all disappeared.

The undocumented comprise 10 percent of all restaurant employees in the U.S., and as many as 40 percent in urban areas such as Los Angeles and New York.

Source.

Best case, it's just massive inflation as employers have to pay documented workers on the sharp end of the supply-and-demand curve. Worst case, collapse & recession.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Spoiler

Oh look, a real world example: Crackdown on illegal immigrants left crops rotting in Georgia fields, ag chief tells US lawmakers - al.com

As for the hospitality industry, if you've worked in hotels or restaurants you know what would happen if they all disappeared.



Source.

Best case, it's just massive inflation as employers have to pay documented workers on the sharp end of the supply-and-demand curve. Worst case, collapse & recession.

We have plenty of kids 15 and younger that can be working those fields and waiting tables.

[Ksyrup]

Which is probably why so many states are weakening child labor laws.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Don't understand what you are trying to say?

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

Ok. let's go sentence for sentence.

Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration.

I agree with every single word in this sentence and the sentence overall.

Speaking just for myself, I would get rid of the first part and just say "We are not comfortable with this level of immigration." But as far as the original sentence, I agree wholeheartedly.

See, I did not try to add any words, do any editing, or try to rephrase what he said. I took what he said at face value. In this case I happen to agree with him. My issue is not with his position whether I agreed or not. My issue is your attempts to change what he said to mean something else. Any attempt to soften this exact wording structure by chucking "illegal" or any other wording in is what I disagree vehemently with.

One thing that I know for sure is if Maher actually wanted to express this sentiment differently to specifically address something within the big topic of immigration, he would have done so. I don't think Maher or anyone else who agrees with this quote needs anyone to try to clean up what he said. It is and has been what I have been saying all along. IMO adding descriptors into what he said is an exercise used so as not to be seen as anti immigrant and all that potentially comes with that.

I understand why.

I don't know Maher's why so I can't say I agree with Maher's why. I understand why I think that we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. In general, I think we don't like being around people who don't look, talk, dress, etc. like us. Is that unique to America? Absolutely not but as we are famous for saying I am not talking about anywhere else. I am talking about America. There are a infinite number of whys out there. I would encourage anyone interested to set aside time to actually read the article Maher pulled the quote from. It is paywalled but it provides a number of the whys many of which as Ghost Econ says has been around for 90+ years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...o-much/583252/

Regardless of the why, my belief remains the same. Given the opportunity a significant portion of the American population INCLUDING non native born legal immigrants (citizens and noncitizens) would shut down the borders and not allow another non American citizen into the country no matter legally or illegally for decades.

It doesn’t make you a racist to say that.

All the data shows that Americans of all races are not comfortable with this level of immigration so no it does not make you racist to say that. Anti-immigrant? Sure. Pro-American? Probably. Racist? Nope, our feelings apply to all races IMO. I hope I have done my small part to allay the concerns of anyone terrified that not being comfortable with this level of immigration makes them racist.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We have plenty of kids 15 and younger that can be working those fields and waiting tables.

Better than having them get that book learning in schools or hanging out in the libraries, am I right?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Which is probably why so many states are weakening child labor laws.

We are going to need to put those kids to work to help pay for the runaway inflation this is all going to cause. Of course the guy running claimed he would "fix" inflation, but he will get a pass as long as he continues to punish the "right" people. "It's the Democrats fault! Look at what they made me do!"

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And I don't understand how H1-B quotes proves your position because


So, because we have confusion in prior discussion where I thought we were clearly talking about legal & illegal immigration, and you thought we were just talking about legal immigration, clarify for me. Are we talking about

1) Legal immigration
2) Illegal immigration
3) Legal but non-immigrant (visas)

I am only talking about legal immigration which includes all of the categories including the temporary visas. H-1B visas generally represent the only practical way for high-skilled foreign nationals, including international students, to work long-term in the United States and be given the opportunity to become employment-based immigrants and U.S. citizens.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Ok. let's go sentence for sentence.

I agree with every single word in this sentence and the sentence overall.

See, I did not try to add any words, do any editing, or try to rephrase what he said. I took what he said at face value.

This is the second paragraph. I've included the first paragraph because it provides context to the second. Note that it is one after the other.

The HBO star (Bill Maher) then quoted The Atlantic’s David Frum, who warned “If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do what liberals won’t.”

“Voters keep saying over and over again we are not comfortable with this level of immigration. I understand why. It doesn’t make you a racist to say that,” Maher said.

You said "no" to the second paragraph. But then proceed to say you agreed with it. And then you claim I'm "chucking 'illegal'" (I don't know what that means, chucking to me means "throw away" but I think you mean that I'm "throwing in"?).

I am missing your point. You don't have a problem with Bill Maher's 2 paragraph statement. But I think you believe I have misrepresented it?

So, to be very clear ... connect the dots for me. Provide my quote where you believe I am incorrect or contradict or (whatever) with the Bill Maher 2 paragraph quote. Or rephrase your "no".

Regardless of the why, my belief remains the same. Given the opportunity a significant portion of the American population INCLUDING non native born legal immigrants (citizens and noncitizens) would shut down the borders and not allow another non American citizen into the country no matter legally or illegally for decades.

I believe otherwise re: legal. But if you have polling/survey evidence to show the "significant portion" (e.g. large minority, large majority?), please provide a link. And hopefully, it provides some clear delineation on attitudes on legal vs illegal immigration, and not conflate the two and just say "immigration".

All the data shows that Americans of all races are not comfortable with this level of immigration so no it does not make you racist to say that. Anti-immigrant? Sure. Pro-American? Probably. Racist? Nope, our feelings apply to all races IMO. I hope I have done my small part to allay the concerns of anyone terrified that not being comfortable with this level of immigration makes them racist.

I absolutely agree with you, that for most people, it does not make them racist.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I am only talking about legal immigration which includes all of the categories including the temporary visas. H-1B visas generally represent the only practical way for high-skilled foreign nationals, including international students, to work long-term in the United States and be given the opportunity to become employment-based immigrants and U.S. citizens.

Okay, I understand your reasoning but disagree. I do not consider H1-B as "immigration" (source: me, I went through the process).

You can adjust your status from H1-B to (something leading to a green card) but H1-B in itself, is not an immigration visa. Using your logic, a student F-1 visa, although not an immigration visa, can lead to a H1-B, and then a green card. Therefore, an F-1 visa is an immigration visa? (It clearly is not). There are probably other non-immigration visa examples.

To be clear, I'm okay talking about (1) legal and (3) legal non-immigrant only, and in my mind they are 2 very different things. Just wanted to establish that baseline because I was NOT talking about (3) legal non-immigrant and your H1-B conversation threw me for a loop.