Trump's Immigration Reform

[Young Drachma]

What's funny (not ha funny) is that when Johnson-Reed Acts passed in 1924, one of the side effects was more black people moving to Northern cities to take the jobs left behind by immigrants who weren't being allowed from Southern and Eastern Europe, and prohibited immigration from Asia, among others.

Not sure there's a class of folks who want to take those jobs, nor do I speculate that wages will not remain flat for those roles. It's unrealistic and I cannot imagine they can get the votes to pass something as comprehensive as they're purporting to want to.

Wild we're gonna try to speed run that again 100 years later. What's old is new, I guess.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

I was really trying my best not to engage with this strawman given that Maher clearly misrepresented the headline of Frum's piece. Yes, that first paragraph is Maher taking the paraphrasing of the title of Frum's essay to more of an extreme, not an actual quote from the author. David Frum has been clear that he did not say that nor was that the tenor of his essay. So givng Maher the benefit of the doubt, assuming he read more than the headline of the essay that Frum wrote and the followup that came afterwards, it seems pretty clear that Maher was talking about all facets of immigration and not "enforcing the border". That view also falls right in line with the second paragraph and specifically this level of immigration. What level? The level from the first paragraph of the essay that says the US admitted more immigrants in the 1990s and yes he specifically stated legally and illegally than we did from 1915 to 1975.

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".

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

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".

Last December, a Republican presidential candidate said that he would close border on day 1 if elected. That person is now President Elect with about 50% of the popular vote. Significant enough for you?

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

Beyond that, I would like you to provide evidence that any criticism/negative view of "immigration" only refers to illegal immigration. Provide evidence that everyone just keeps forgetting to make a distinction when they just say immigration as opposed to specifying legal or illegal. I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case. Without such evidence, I think the attempts to convince people that it is the case is just as disingenuous as calling someone fascist for not wanting illegal immigration.

Your main focus is illegal immigration, limiting citizenship etc. You are not alone. You speak on legal immigration as well. From what I can tell, you are very clear when you want to make the distinction. But there are also people whose main focus is on limiting, reducing and yes doing away with all immigration at least for a short term. Those people make compelling cases for not wanting immigration including the ones made by David Frum in essay I posted. Most of those cases are not ones I would agree with but I am comfortable with them making the. I can also do so without suggesting any sort of discrimination because well their arguments are not based in any discrimination other not being American. People like Frum don't need you to provide cover for them who having issues with legal immigration as well by saying they actually mean illegal immigration. Other people don't want you to provide the cover of illegal immigration for people who are explicit when they make the case they don't want anyone from Country X or Country Z because those people are all (insert stereotype here) and thus provide them protection from having their cases accurately judged and portrayed. I promise you that when someone tells an immigrant to go back where they came from, most of the time they don't give two shits whether they are here legally or illegally. All that matters is they want them out of the country and some with go as far as to use whatever means necessary to make that happen. Even it is means hiring a fascist.

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.

Given his wants from the first administration, a guy like Stephen Miller and his acolytes have made it clear all varieties of immigration is on the chopping block including de-naturalization.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I was really trying my best not to engage with this strawman given that Maher clearly misrepresented the headline of Frum's piece. Yes, that first paragraph is Maher taking the paraphrasing of the title of Frum's essay to more of an extreme, not an actual quote from the author.

Thank you. This is a lot more clear now. Specific to above, I think this is a secondary beef you have re: Maher quote misrepresented/misleads what Frum said.

The Maher quote is below, specifically first paragraph:

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.

The Frum titled article on The Atlantic is:

If Liberals Won’t Enforce Borders, Fascists Will

Yes, its not exact quote but specific to "(Frum) did not say that", IMO close enough.

David Frum has been clear that he did not say that nor was that the tenor of his essay.

I tried googling on this and did not find it. I do believe Maher quoted Frum accurately based on the titles (see above). If you have a link about Frum saying he didn't say it or disavowed Maher's rephrasing, please post it.

So givng Maher the benefit of the doubt, assuming he read more than the headline of the essay that Frum wrote and the followup that came afterwards, it seems pretty clear that Maher was talking about all facets of immigration and not "enforcing the border". That view also falls right in line with the second paragraph and specifically this level of immigration. What level? The level from the first paragraph of the essay that says the US admitted more immigrants in the 1990s and yes he specifically stated legally and illegally than we did from 1915 to 1975.

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

I think this is the primary issue you bring up. You believe when I was quoting Maher, I was referring specifically to illegal immigration and not legal immigration?

I asked for quotes where you believe I was "incorrect or contradict or (whatever) with the Bill Maher 2 paragraph quote". You did not provide any. Therefore, I am going to provide my quotes below which immediately preceded the 4 times I had the Maher 2 paragraph quote.

If you search on "Maher", the 4 times starts on pg 9 and here are sentences immediately preceding ...

(1) I'll leave with you the thought below. We need a holistic immigration reform, which will certainly have compromises, to address illegal immigration and the broader legal immigration.

Pretty clear I was talking about illegal and legal.

(2) 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 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

It's pretty clear we were talking about legal also.

(3) 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?

Another evidence that we are talking about legal as asylum is a "legal" status

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

I believe is the time I used the quote that alluded to "illegals" specifically vs both. And you have taken this to mean I misquoted Maher (or Maher misquoted Frum) because I claimed the statement was for "illegals".

I did say that. However, in the same post, the paragraph preceding it was in response to another member.

... 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.

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

Bottom line - yes, I can see how you took quote (4) as me believing Maher/Frum's quote was only specific to illegals. Hopefully, I have shown you the other 3 occasions where I used it for both legal & illegals.

A following point, if you search for the phrase "legal and illegal" and "legal & illegal", you'll see multitudes of hits attributed to me. Or in other words, my default is to talk about legal & illegal immigration, not one or another, unless I explicitly state so ... which I did with (4).

We seem to miscommunicate. I talk about legal & illegal immigration. You talk about legal immigration only and sometimes allude to legal non-immigrant. That's all fine, I (and probably you) need to be more explicit when debating each other.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

See above. Now provide me with the quote where Maher explicitly states he was talking solely about illegal immigration and border controls.

See above discussion on the 4 times I used Maher's quote.

Last December, a Republican presidential candidate said that he would close border on day 1 if elected. That person is now President Elect with about 50% of the popular vote. Significant enough for you?

You did not delineate between legal and illegal (which I like to do and I believe is the cause of much confusion between you and me). I want to say you only meant illegal, but then there are times when you say you are only talking about legal.

Question - Can you rephrase your position and explicitly say "legal, illegal, all" for closing the border?

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

I can't prove this. I never said I could.

However, I can provide evidence that the American public see "legal" and "illegal" immigration differently (e.g. approval levels). I'll dig that up later.

Beyond that, I would like you to provide evidence that any criticism/negative view of "immigration" only refers to illegal immigration. Provide evidence that everyone just keeps forgetting to make a distinction when they just say immigration as opposed to specifying legal or illegal. I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case. Without such evidence, I think the attempts to convince people that it is the case is just as disingenuous as calling someone fascist for not wanting illegal immigration.

This is fair and per above, I'll dig it up later.

However, to set expectations, I've told you before that I've not found a single Pew/Gallup poll that delineates between legal & illegal. They do talk about it but they never ask the very straight forward question "Do you approve of legal immigration Yes/No" and then immediately followed with "Do you approve of illegal immigration Yes/No".

Best I can do is find evidence from differing polls/surveys. The hole in this is they have different timeframes, different methodologies (sampling size, question phrasing etc.).

But yes, I can provide you evidence based on my caveat above.

Your main focus is illegal immigration, limiting citizenship etc. You are not alone. You speak on legal immigration as well. From what I can tell, you are very clear when you want to make the distinction.

It is fair to say that illegal immigration is primary on my mind. But legal immigration is a very high second. Per above, search on "legal and illegal" or "legal & illegal" and you'll see that I am very concerned about both.

Assume if I do not preface a statement/discussion with one or the other that I am talking about both.

But there are also people whose main focus is on limiting, reducing and yes doing away with all immigration at least for a short term. Those people make compelling cases for not wanting immigration including the ones made by David Frum in essay I posted.

I did not read The Atlantic but read NPR interviewing Frum. It's clear that he is concerned about both legal & illegal immigration.

'The Atlantic': If Liberals Won't Enforce Borders, Fascists Will : NPR

Re: Frum and your statement he "not wanting immigration" is not accurate IMO. If you have a quote from The Atlantic, please post it.

From my reading, Frum wants to control the "pace" of the immigration. This is quote from NPR link

FRUM: I don't ground very much of my argument on that at all. What I ground my argument upon is a tendency of the human mind, perceived by psychologists in people of all backgrounds, to be stressed by rapid change.

MARTIN: What's the problem with becoming majority minority?

FRUM: So I'm saying - it's not - that's not the - relevant. I'm saying that - people say this, that your argument is driven by concerns about being majority minority. I'm saying that decision's already made. The question for us is how do we make a success of this? And on present policy, we are in real danger of not making a success of it.

I promise you that when someone tells an immigrant to go back where they came from, most of the time they don't give two shits whether they are here legally or illegally. All that matters is they want them out of the country and some with go as far as to use whatever means necessary to make that happen. Even it is means hiring a fascist.

You've made similar statements about legal/illegal distinction is irrelevant and I've disagreed each time.

Given his wants from the first administration, a guy like Stephen Miller and his acolytes have made it clear all varieties of immigration is on the chopping block including de-naturalization.

Illegal immigration, goes without saying. And apparently, well supported with Trump's significant victory & mandate. I cannot defend how Trump will do this (don't know the methods & process yet) so we'll see once the plan is revealed. You already know how President Edward would do it.

For legal immigration, absolutely no problem with more merit based and less family based immigration. Makes complete sense to me (even pre-2016 Trump).

For legal, non-immigrants, the only one I have real background on is F-1 student and H1-B. I do believe we should get more quality F-1 students (not fake ones that I read about entering Canada and UK) and we definitely should reform H1-B. There are definitely some bad practices there.

De-naturalization is an interesting one. I'll break it out separately as it's new topic on this thread and may be worthy of its own thread.

[Edward64]

re: fears of de-naturalization. The link below discusses the conditions for de-naturalization and provides additional notes.

https://www.aila.org/library/feature...forts-by-uscis

Too much to quote, so just some high level bullets and go into link for more details.

A) A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally
B) A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.
C) A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization.
D) Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

There is a note that Trump 2016 got a lot more aggressive on de-naturalization.

According to the New York Times, “denaturalizations have ramped up under the Trump administration: Of the 228 denaturalization cases that the department has filed since 2008, about 40 percent of them were filed since 2017, according to official department numbers. And over the past three years, denaturalization case referrals to the department have increased 600 percent.”

This happened pre-Trump and assume the conditions were established also pre-Trump. I'm sure there are alot of possible "buts" in there but, in general, the conditions A-D for de-naturalization seems reasonable to me.

Assuming the laws are followed and the evidence does show A-D happened, what's the issue? Has Trump/Miller proposed additional conditions that are unreasonable? Or is it because they are more aggressive looking into violations of A-D?

[Edward64]

To set the stage, I am recapping what I believe I am answering to (and the caveats) ...

I believe it is important to make a distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. Because American view the 2 population differently. My quote below still stands

I am saying its important to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration because one is more significantly accepted than the other which, in theory, translates to the media, public awareness, and politics.

Miami_fan does not believe its important to make the distinction and has challenged me

Now you provide evidence that 50% of Americans that voted for the President Elect are interested in a clear delineation when they hear him speak on closing the border.

I don't think people care that much. Prove to me that that is not the case.

Prove is too strong of requirement. So, instead my caveat below and my evidence ...

... to set expectations, I've told you before that I've not found a single Pew/Gallup poll that delineates between legal & illegal. They do talk about it but they never ask the very straight forward question "Do you approve of legal immigration Yes/No" and then immediately followed with "Do you approve of illegal immigration Yes/No".

Best I can do is find evidence from differing polls/surveys. The hole in this is they have different timeframes, different methodologies (sampling size, question phrasing etc.).
:
I can provide evidence that the American public see "legal" and "illegal" immigration differently (e.g. approval levels).

American's negative on illegal immigrants:

https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-72-am...lity-immigrate

(1) Nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans say it is “unacceptable” for people to illegally immigrate to the U.S

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/...migration.aspx

(2) Seventy-six percent are in favor of the U.S. hiring significantly more border patrol agents, and 63% favor allowing the president and the secretary of Homeland Security to temporarily prohibit individuals from seeking asylum when the U.S. Southwest border is overwhelmed.

Just a moment...

(3) Half of Americans — including 42% of Democrats — say they'd support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll.

(4) ... nearly two-thirds of Americans said illegal immigration is a real crisis, not a politically driven media narrative.

(5) The big picture: The survey still found Americans strongly support immigration as long as it is lawful. "Illegal" immigration is what's giving people anxiety.

Immigration attitudes, Biden and Trump voters ahead of election 2024 | Pew Research Center

(6) While a 59% majority of voters say that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally, this is a substantial drop compared with recent years. In June of 2020, 74% of voters said that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay legally.

(7) Democratic voters have also become somewhat more likely to say that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay legally.

Americans positive on legal immigrants:

Just a moment...

(8) The big picture: The survey still found Americans strongly support immigration as long as it is lawful. "Illegal" immigration is what's giving people anxiety.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

(9) Thinking now about immigrants -- that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States, in your view, should LEGAL immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased? (Increased 34%, Present Level 38%, Decreased 25%)

(10) On the whole, do you think LEGAL immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today? (Good Thing 84%, Bad Thing 13%)

AP-NORC/AAPI Data poll: AAPI adults see benefits from legal immigration | AP News

(11) About 8 in 10 AAPI adults say legal immigration to the U.S. is a “major benefit” contributing to economic growth ...
:
But many AAPI adults view illegal immigration very differently. Only about 4 in 10 AAPI adults say immigrants who are in the country without legal permission contribute to economic growth, similar to the share of the general adult population who say the same

Bottom-line.

Pretty obvious and self evident to me. IMO above links & quotes show plenty of evidence that Americans view legals & illegals differently.

But until there is a reputable Pew/Gallup poll that specifically asks the question(s) directly while comparing/contrasting the 2 populations, all we are left with is tidbits of insight from different polls ... with different timelines, methodologies etc. And that is the best we can do for now.

Question - If you find contradictory poll/survey evidence, provide the links.

e.g.
Americans do not prefer legal vs illegal immigrants
Americans want legal immigrants to be deported/de-naturalized in similar scope as illegals
Americans negative views on legal immigrants that supersedes/exceeds the negative view on illegals

Edit: FWIW, I can't prove it but IMO articles post-election are now more specific when talking about illegal/undocumented immigration. Wish I knew how to code Python and scrape the articles pre/post election and come up with a count.

I've been complaining about the lack of distinction. MSM seem to purposely shift the narrative with adjectives "illegal --> undocumented --> migrants/immigrants" and conflating between legal & illegal (e.g. "Trump's going to deport immigrants" without making the distinction). So, bringing back these adjectives, reduces confusion and is a welcome change.