Trump's Immigration Reform

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm all for securing the borders but this does seem too much.

Call for backup, get off the horses, protect yourself if you have to (lots of weapons) and secure & sit them down. If they run, then yeah gallop and chase them down.

Just for the record

The photographer who took controversial photos at the Texas border says that the images have been dramatically misinterpreted.

Despite hysterical accusations that mounted Border Patrol agents chased migrants with whips, photographer Paul Ratje says that he saw nothing of the sort at the border in Del Rio on Sunday.

'I've never seen them whip anyone,' Ratje told KTSM-TV. The still images actually depict the mounted agents swinging the long reins of their horses, not holding whips.

[Edward64]

A caravan (or more) has arrived at the border and a crisis has to be dealt with.

Photos: El Paso sees surge in border crossings | CNN

"Look at the vast numbers increased in the past couple of weeks, especially the last three to four days," El Paso Deputy City Manager Mario D'Agostino told the city council there on Monday. "Those numbers are unsustainable, and that's with Title 42 in place. So we can only imagine what that Title 42 lift is going to do"

Before, he said, increases in migrant populations crossing the border were gradual and over a series of months. This time, he said, it has been rapid and over a few days.

"Our infrastructure cannot keep up," he said.

Biden administration prepares for surge of migrants ahead of the forced end of a Trump-era border policy | CNN Politics

Already, over the weekend, more than 2,400 migrants crossed into the United States each day in only one section of the border, according to a senior Border Patrol official, marking what he described as a “major surge in illegal crossings” in the El Paso, Texas, sector.

The articles do mention there are plans to hold & process them but ...

In it, DHS also stressed the need for congressional action to update outdated statutes and help create a functioning asylum system, as the current one is under immense strain.

But just days away from the anticipated end of Title 42, plans are still being sorted out.

"The 21st (is) going to be a disaster. There are so many things in the pipeline, but nothing is ready (to) go,” one official said, referring to December 21 when Title 42 is set to end.

[Edward64]

I think it's a no brainer. It should be one of his top policy pushes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...erms-rcna49905

As they plot a post-midterms legislative agenda for President Joe Biden, White House officials have been considering whether changes to the country’s immigration system should be one of his major policy pushes, according to White House officials and other people familiar with the discussions.

It's fair enough to say you have bigger priorities to deal with with Covid, Inflation, Ukrainian war. Time to really do something about it, use your political capital and come up with a compromise bill like you did with the Infrastructure bill.

Such a push reflects an acknowledgment among Biden’s advisers that as he prepares for a re-election campaign based on the slogan “Promises Kept,” immigration remains a 2020 campaign pledge that remains largely unfulfilled.

Biden sent Congress a comprehensive bill to overhaul the immigration system on his first day in office. But he has expended no political capital to move it forward in the nearly two years since, while Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.

[JPhillips]

We're in the same place we've been for twenty years, the GOP won't let any immigration plan through. Just last week McConnell killed the deal Sinema and Tillis were working on. I don't know what Biden can do through executive orders, but there's no chance of an immigration deal with the GOP in congress.

[Edward64]

There's a compromise bill there somewhere. There's stuff that both sides agree to. Question is does Biden want to compromise (enough) as he did with Infrastructure. IMO don't let perfection get in the way of good enough.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There's a compromise bill there somewhere. There's stuff that both sides agree to. Question is does Biden want to compromise (enough) as he did with Infrastructure. IMO don't let perfection get in the way of good enough.

Is there though?

The border being a disaster is great business for the GOP.

[JPhillips]

McConnell just killed the compromise being worked on by Sinema and Tillis. The GOP leadership isn't interested in a compromise. I'm not sure the GOP would pass a standalone wall funding bill if it would potentially help a Dem president, so they certainly aren't going to do anything that will make the processing of immigrants go faster and work better.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

McConnell just killed the compromise being worked on by Sinema and Tillis. The GOP leadership isn't interested in a compromise. I'm not sure the GOP would pass a standalone wall funding bill if it would potentially help a Dem president, so they certainly aren't going to do anything that will make the processing of immigrants go faster and work better.

And it isn't the first time compromised bills have been spiked by Republicans. It has happened numerous times from GWB-Obama days. There is always a group of extremist that find a way to sabotage any deal. McCain tried countless times to get something done.

[Edward64]

I don't think you can blame McConnell for that. I'm thinking trying to get this divisive issue rushed through a lame duck Congress is, understandably, fraught with failure.

A last-ditch effort by Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema to provide an estimated 2 million undocumented youth with legal status in exchange for stronger border security measures failed to gain enough support in the U.S. Senate to reach the 60-vote threshold needed to advance legislation.

One of the congressional aides familiar with the talks said there wasn't enough time for Sinema and Tillis to reach a deal before the end of the year, especially given ongoing efforts to pass government funding bills. The aide said a framework stemming from the talks could serve as the basis for a bill in the next Congress.

Per earlier articles, if Biden wants to make something happen, he needs to push it and spend the political capital. I think the below bolded is the main area for him to focus on and compromise.

Key facts about U.S. immigration policies and Biden’s proposed changes | Pew Research Center

Biden’s biggest immigration proposal to date would allow more new immigrants into the U.S. while giving millions of unauthorized immigrants who are already in the country a pathway to legal status. The expansive legislation would create an eight-year path to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants, update the existing family-based immigration system, revise employment-based visa rules and increase the number of diversity visas.

[sterlingice]

What political capital? He barely was able to work with Schumer and Manchin to rope-a-dope through a slimmed down spending bill via reconciliation. Everything else he's done, he's had to do with executive orders or administrative actions as Congress has been deadlocked and won't be able to do even less in the next 2 years (meanwhile, the Supreme Court is looking to completely gut the administrative powers of the executive branch).

They're going to spend the next two years Lucy'ing the football away from any political victory. Biden loves making deals, even if he comes out behind, but if the other party doesn't want him to have any victories but has to sign off on anything, even something they want, it's not going to happen.

SI

[Edward64]

Granted that Political Capital is a nebulous term but it applies also to Dems, not just Reps. But here's an example (not saying its the right one). Put on the table he's offering everyone on his original proposal but stripping out below (other than for DACA) ...

The expansive legislation would create an eight-year path to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants,

I know there will be a lot of Dem resistance and won't go for that. Just like having it is a non-starter for many Reps. This is where the compromise needs to be.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Granted that Political Capital is a nebulous term but it applies also to Dems, not just Reps. But here's an example (not saying its the right one). Put on the table he's offering everyone on his original proposal but stripping out below (other than for DACA) ...



I know there will be a lot of Dem resistance and won't go for that. Just like having it is a non-starter for many Reps. This is where the compromise needs to be.

Any legislation without a path to citizenship is a non-starter.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Any legislation without a path to citizenship is a non-starter.

And that's probably why there's not been much movement either way.

There's a lot of other stuff that both parties can compromise on but this is the crux that either parties don't want to budge on. Not quite the political third rail that is SS/Medicare but pretty close.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And that's probably why there's not been much movement either way.

There's a lot of other stuff that both parties can compromise on but this is the crux that either parties don't want to budge on. Not quite the political third rail that is SS/Medicare but pretty close.

In all seriousness, you fashion yourself a centrist - and we can all have a good laugh and debate about this another time. But let's say, for this exercise, that you're the arbiter of the center and want to broker a "compromise" deal.

What does that deal look like? And I don't mean in general policy terms of "each side compromises something and a deal gets done" - you could say that about any bill. It also makes those negotiating in bad faith like they're actually trying to govern when, really, they're just trying to stonewall to make the person or party in charge look bad. What policies would actually be in it? I mean, in broad strokes - I don't expect it to be like "10.5M path to citizenship in 8 years" unless you want to get that granular. But I'm also curious about something with a bit more detail than "some people get more citizenship while we strengthen border security" because that's what both sides, to greater and lesser degrees (which I think matter but maybe you don't), have been saying for decades because it allows them to be vague enough to not be accountable while also not having to do anything and blame the other side. And then handicap its chances on getting through a GOP House and Dem Senate - which would have a harder time passing it?

SI

[JPhillips]

Dem would vote, tomorrow, for a narrow bill that funded the immigration system to an extent that they could process claims quickly and clear up some of the backlog at the border, but the GOP won't do that. There is room for compromise, but only on the Dem side. The GOP has kneecapped every immigration bill for twenty yers even though most of them have d majority support.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In all seriousness, you fashion yourself a centrist - and we can all have a good laugh and debate about this another time. But let's say, for this exercise, that you're the arbiter of the center and want to broker a "compromise" deal.

I describe myself as moderate but if you define centrist as below, I'd generally agree with it.

Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing nor right-wing politics.

Your question below is a great question. It's definitely worthy of discussion.

What does that deal look like? And I don't mean in general policy terms of "each side compromises something and a deal gets done" - you could say that about any bill. It also makes those negotiating in bad faith like they're actually trying to govern when, really, they're just trying to stonewall to make the person or party in charge look bad. What policies would actually be in it? I mean, in broad strokes - I don't expect it to be like "10.5M path to citizenship in 8 years" unless you want to get that granular. But I'm also curious about something with a bit more detail than "some people get more citizenship while we strengthen border security" because that's what both sides, to greater and lesser degrees (which I think matter but maybe you don't), have been saying for decades because it allows them to be vague enough to not be accountable while also not having to do anything and blame the other side. And then handicap its chances on getting through a GOP House and Dem Senate - which would have a harder time passing it?

I would love to explore this with you. But as you've said below, we've had less than successful discussions.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

We can only read the words on the pages in front of us, how they're presented, and the history of our interactions with those posing the question.
SI

So my proposal is -- can we have a discussion that does not involve personal insults, answering questions with sarcasm etc. but an exchange of ideas, asking questions and also answering them? Let me know and I'll be glad to share my ideas and ask you for yours.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dem would vote, tomorrow, for a narrow bill that funded the immigration system to an extent that they could process claims quickly and clear up some of the backlog at the border, but the GOP won't do that. There is room for compromise, but only on the Dem side. The GOP has kneecapped every immigration bill for twenty yers even though most of them have d majority support.

I would be interested in reading more, please provide some links.

[JPhillips]

Just read up on the Sinema Tillis bill. This was the major focus.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just read up on the Sinema Tillis bill. This was the major focus.

I thought we had already discussed that, see quote from above. If you have others, feel free to share them.

One of the congressional aides familiar with the talks said there wasn't enough time for Sinema and Tillis to reach a deal before the end of the year, especially given ongoing efforts to pass government funding bills. The aide said a framework stemming from the talks could serve as the basis for a bill in the next Congress.

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

[flere-imsaho]

Your perspective is that both parties share blame, but yet you also admit you're not particularly well-versed in the recent (20 years) history of immigration legislation.

You want it to be one way, but really it's the other way.

In 2005 and 2006 the House and Senate, respectively, passed immigration bills. The House version, passed with 92% of Republicans in support and 82% of Democrats opposing, was a set of draconian anti-immigrant measures. The Senate version, authored by a bipartisan set of Senators, passed the Senate 62-36, with 39 Democrats and 23 Republicans in support and 33 Republicans and 3 Democrats in opposition. It was a more even-handed set of measures. Since the two bills could not be reconciled, nothing ended up being passed.

In 2007, at the urging of President Bush, the Democratic majority Senate tried a compromise bill of the 2005 & 2006 efforts which eventually failed cloture votes.

In 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill on immigration 68 to 32, with all Democrats & Independents, and 14 Republicans voting for the bill. The House, however, never took up the bill due to threats from conservative Republican legislators. The next year, sitting GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary (the first sitting House Majority Leader to lose his primary since 1899) in part due to his open-ness (not even support) towards immigration reform.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Your perspective is that both parties share blame, but yet you also admit you're not particularly well-versed in the recent (20 years) history of immigration legislation.

I actually did not admit that? Sometimes, it's good to get sources so you know what is being discussed vs opinions. Hence, I asked for sources. Thank you for providing yours.

You are right that I cannot recall every Immigration Reform proposal (not an Immigration attorney) but, as an immigrant myself, I am very interested in reform and pay attention to them when they come up (or not). Therefore, I will say that I have more knowledge than the common person, have strong opinions (with what I believe are good rationale), but definitely not an expert.

You want it to be one way, but really it's the other way.

See above rebuttal

For the remaining quotes/sources you provided, I assume this is in support of JPhillips contention below. I will gear my answers to that, tell me if I got your intent wrong.

Dem would vote, tomorrow, for a narrow bill that funded the immigration system to an extent that they could process claims quickly and clear up some of the backlog at the border, but the GOP won't do that. There is room for compromise, but only on the Dem side. The GOP has kneecapped every immigration bill for twenty yers even though most of them have d majority support.

I don't believe the 2 of us have butted heads to the point of below. But if you feel don't want to accommodate, I'd asked you to just tell me now and save us time. Otherwise, I'll do my research and post my responses over the next day or two.

So my proposal is -- can we have a discussion that does not involve personal insults, answering questions with sarcasm etc. but an exchange of ideas, asking questions and also answering them? Let me know and I'll be glad to share my ideas and ask you for yours.

[Lathum]

Here we go again with this nonsense...

[Edward64]

Feel free not to participate or block me

[NobodyHere]

I'll bite.

So Edward (or anyone for that matter), what would your idealistic Immigration bill look like?

What do we do with people here already illegally, whether they are adult or minor, or came across as adult or minor.

What should we do with the people who have left their countries and are currently trying to enter our country?

What do we do with people who have overstayed their Visas?

What penalties should people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants face?

What relevant issues have I missed?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'll bite.

So Edward (or anyone for that matter), what would your idealistic Immigration bill look like?

What do we do with people here already illegally, whether they are adult or minor, or came across as adult or minor.

What should we do with the people who have left their countries and are currently trying to enter our country?

What do we do with people who have overstayed their Visas?

What penalties should people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants face?

What relevant issues have I missed?

Happy to have this conversation with you.

But I'm going to defer until after I respond to flere-imsaho post first. I think I know my answers but need to dig up the sources/links when I respond. So stay tuned.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Granted that Political Capital is a nebulous term but it applies also to Dems, not just Reps. But here's an example (not saying its the right one). Put on the table he's offering everyone on his original proposal but stripping out below (other than for DACA) ...

I think your example of the infrastructure bill is a good one, but it ought to lead you in the opposite direction. There is zero chance, none whatsoever IMO, of getting anything substantive done on immigration - a highly contentious issue - with a divided Congress. The infrastructure bill was far less divisive by comparison and what they got basically made almost nobody happy, barely passed as it was, and left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth regarding the idea of trying further ideas on anything as substantive as agreeing water is wet

I also think this is a situation where on reason for a lack of compromise is the amount that would be needed to compromise is so high, that from the perspective of one, sometimes both sides the current terrible situation is preferable by comparison. What GrantDawg said about a path to citizenship is on point. There's a significant amount of people for whom having that is a non-negotiable, and others for whom having it is completely unacceptable. There are many situations where compromise is the right thing to do; there are others where it is not.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Feel free not to participate or block me

Don't bother. You've couched your responses in a sufficient number of caveats & weasel words (as usual) that fundamentally you can argue all positions at once, and no positions at once. E.g.:

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough)

A position so vague as to be meaningless. Not worth my time.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Don't bother. You've couched your responses in a sufficient number of caveats & weasel words (as usual) that fundamentally you can argue all positions at once, and no positions at once. E.g.:

A position so vague as to be meaningless. Not worth my time.

Okay, np.

FWIW, I actually do have strong feelings & specifics about Immigration reform

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I thought we had already discussed that, see quote from above. If you have others, feel free to share them.



My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

That quote is nonsense and almost certainly from McConnell's side. If there was a deal there was plenty of time to pass something. The real issue is that McConnell said he wouldn't support it so there's no chance it gets to 60 and beats the filibuster.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think your example of the infrastructure bill is a good one, but it ought to lead you in the opposite direction. There is zero chance, none whatsoever IMO, of getting anything substantive done on immigration - a highly contentious issue - with a divided Congress. The infrastructure bill was far less divisive by comparison and what they got basically made almost nobody happy, barely passed as it was, and left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth regarding the idea of trying further ideas on anything as substantive as agreeing water is wet

I'm not optimistic but I wouldn't call it zero chance. IIRC, there were some on this board that said Biden would not be able to find compromise with GOP because of how screwed up we were post Trump. Biden, through his cigar filled backroom (I think) negotiations, was able to find compromise from a $3.5T to $1.2T infrastructure bill. If he can do that, I have hopes he can do immigration reform ...

I also think this is a situation where on reason for a lack of compromise is the amount that would be needed to compromise is so high, that from the perspective of one, sometimes both sides the current terrible situation is preferable by comparison. What GrantDawg said about a path to citizenship is on point. There's a significant amount of people for whom having that is a non-negotiable, and others for whom having it is completely unacceptable. There are many situations where compromise is the right thing to do; there are others where it is not.

Yes, I know what GD said is true, for many it's non-negotiable. I do believe this is the key issue on why big immigration reform bills haven't gone anywhere.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That quote is nonsense and almost certainly from McConnell's side. If there was a deal there was plenty of time to pass something. The real issue is that McConnell said he wouldn't support it so there's no chance it gets to 60 and beats the filibuster.

FWIW, I think Rollcall is pretty "center", see below. If you have a non-partisan source, provide the link.

Also, if it was so urgent & important, why bring it up during a lame duck session. Why not before mid-terms when it would have had plenty of time for public discourse. (Rhetorical question, we know why and that applies to both Dems & GOP)

https://rollcall.com/2022/12/15/immi...n-out-of-time/

The likelihood of a finalized immigration deal in the lame-duck period after the midterm elections dwindled rapidly in recent days. The push was led by Tillis, R-N.C., and Sinema of Arizona, who recently announced she was switching her registration from Democrat to independent.

Last week, Tillis said he did not see the deal as a candidate for the fiscal 2023 government funding package, meaning the bill would require its own floor time.

Congress still faces a lengthy to-do list before lawmakers are set to leave Washington for the holidays, including a government funding package and the national defense authorization bill.

Tillis sounded pessimistic on a Senate deal during this Congress two days ago, when he told reporters that “time is running out.”

A congressional aide familiar with the immigration talks said Sinema and Tillis, who had engaged in immigration negotiations for months, ran out of time to put forward an immigration deal that could pass both chambers before the end of this Congress.

Even though no immigration legislation will reach the Senate floor this term, the aide said, Sinema and Tillis have the framework for an immigration compromise ready to be introduced next Congress.

Any immigration measures that would legalize portions of the undocumented population would draw Republican opposition and face a steeper climb next session in a Republican-led House.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s immigration panel, said he was “frustrated” in response to reports that the negotiations had faltered.

“I’ll never give up trying,” Padilla said. “It’s only going to get more urgent.”

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., who said previously he was involved in the proposal, stopped short of declaring negotiations this session over but acknowledged there are “challenges here in the schedule.”

“If it was up to me, we would stay here until this gets done,” Kelly said.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'll bite.

So Edward (or anyone for that matter), what would your idealistic Immigration bill look like?

What do we do with people here already illegally, whether they are adult or minor, or came across as adult or minor.

What should we do with the people who have left their countries and are currently trying to enter our country?

What do we do with people who have overstayed their Visas?

What penalties should people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants face?

What relevant issues have I missed?

Now that my time is freed up as flere-imsaho doesn't want to discuss with me ...

I knew I wrote up something a while ago. And guess what, it was to you. See Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Trump Presidency – 2016

Before I start rambling, its always good to try level set a baseline. Here's where I'm coming from. Not in any particular order. Feel free to agree, disagree or add to.

1) Most of today's illegals come from south of the border. Most come for economic reasons, most are law-abiding but there is a criminal element
2) Legal visa holders stay in the US after their visa has expired
3) We can't track well who is in the country
4) Some industries need "migrants" to work jobs that American's won't. Many are hiring illegals and turning a blind eye (not as bad as before though)
5) It is to the US advantage to encourage highly skilled people (e.g. entrepreneurs, PhD students but not sure about pure wealth etc. you get the idea) to immigrate to the US. Certain groups should have preference
6) There is not a "chain immigration" problem where an immigrant is able to sponsor non-immediate family members. One should be able to sponsor immediate family members (e.g. spouse, child) but not an uncle, aunt etc.
7) There is a problem with H1B visa's, it has been abused by global companies. Benefit of visa lottery is suspect. Country quotas may not be fairly distributed
8) Non-citizen woman that has a baby in the US has secured US citizenship for that baby. Consider changing this law, maybe when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth

So my holistic solution (admittedly easier said than done) to immigration reform includes

1) Definitely kick out illegals with felonies
2) Acknowledge that economic need is the main driver. Setup something/fund etc. that helps the southern economies and encourages US companies that used illegals/migrant labor to invest further south; setup a renewable guest worker program
3) Make it harder for illegals to come and stay in the country. I personally believe the Wall is a good start to show commitment, resolve & deterrence; add the deterrent that if you are ever caught as an illegal, you can never, ever come back to the US legally or get guest worker visa
4) For the demand side of employers hiring, really crack down on them. I'm not just talking about a small business unit in a big conglomerate, I'm talking about the mom-and-pop farmers, builders, chicken processors, lawn improvement etc. also
5) However, don't just crack down on demand without offering an alternative. I think a renewable guest worker program is good. Allows us to track and control who stays or not. I do not know if guest worker should have a path to citizenship. I lean towards no but it should be renewable
6) Identify highly skilled immigrants and, assuming we can overcome the security and background check challenges, give them a fast track to US citizenship. Many of these will probably be Chinese or Asian students
7) Implement a system that can track all immigrants, guest workers, identified illegals, folks that overstayed their visas etc.
8) Fix the abuse with H1-B; get rid of lottery and give its allocations to other visa spots; review quota allocations to ensure its fair regardless of national origin
9) Fix the birthright law. Unsure what is possible but possibly when child turns 18, the child can apply for fast track to citizenship vs automatic at birth.

Other:

10) I think its perfectly reasonable to not allow immigrants/refugees from countries that we cannot clear satisfactorily. This is obviously tricky and I don't know the definition of "satisfactorily" is. We get flak from the Europeans but I don't see them (or the Vatican for that matter) volunteering to take our Latin/South American "refugees" or, in other words, you worry about countries close to you and we'll do the same.
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)
12) DACA is tough. Under the assumption there is a holistic immigration reform, then I say let them stay (e.g. grandfathered) and provide path to citizenship
13) I don't see how this could work but if there was a way to ensure immigrants will "assimilate" that would be great. Obviously controversial and I don't know how to write a proposed law but here's a use case for me -- if you immigrate and insist on wearing a full burkha with face covered, see'ya. You want to wear a head scarf for modesty, no problems with that.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'll bite.

So Edward (or anyone for that matter), what would your idealistic Immigration bill look like?

See post above on my thoughts 4-5 years ago. I'd like the opportunity to amend as needed but it gives you a sense of where I'm coming from.

I assume below questions are geared towards illegals south of the border (other than for the visa question). I also assume you aren't really talking about felons and like, but just regular folks.

So under the assumption there is a holistic immigration reform compromise (e.g. so there are good/bad for everyone) including much better border control ...

What do we do with people here already illegally, whether they are adult or minor, or came across as adult or minor.

DACA, Dreamers - path to citizenship
Others - my compromise is to limit pathway to citizenship. Possible scenarios are (1) no citizenship but special class of permanent residency that allows them to stay & work legally, but will be kicked out if they commit a felony, no voting rights (2) pathway to citizenship for those that entered before XXXX year but not for others.

I personally would not be in favor for pathway to citizenship for all illegals.

What should we do with the people who have left their countries and are currently trying to enter our country?

My official answer is -- there are laws & rules. Let's follow & enforce them. Currently, Trump's "Remain in Mexico" is being played out and (I believe) the courts will allow Biden to stop the policy. Biden won the election so he gets to set whatever policies he wants (even if I don't agree with them). If one doesn't like what Biden/Trump etc. has done, and if it's important enough, factor that into elections.

My personal answer is I like the "Remain in Mexico" policy. Trump "bullying" Mexico into it arguably did more to stop illegal immigration than The (incomplete) Wall.

What do we do with people who have overstayed their Visas?

Assuming you mean overstay egregiously vs just want to extend my vacation another month. I say buy them a one way ticket home and note they are persona non-grata for X years. I'd think the majority of people that overstay their visa have some means vs south of the border.

The problem is there is no good way to track these situations currently. Immigration reform needs to address creating a system/database that can track/report/alert etc. I honestly don't know why this isn't already in place.

What penalties should people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants face?

I think the laws in place are okay. But think the problems are (1) not enforced consistently (2) there is a verification system and employer can check but it's not perfect.

For a first offense, a person may be fined $375 to $2,000 for each illegal employee hired. For a second offense, the fine increases to $3,200 to $6,500 for every illegal employee hired. If an employer has three or more offenses, they may be fined an amount of from $4,300 to $16,000 per illegal employee hired.

What relevant issues have I missed?

Even after an Immigration Reform is passed, illegal immigration will continue. A ramped up "guest worker" program is key.

For immigration in general - increase highly skilled immigrants significantly, get them a quick path to permanent residency/citizenship (especially those that come to US for school). Helps with our < 2.1 kids

[Edward64]

Joe, good move asking for +1 week extension as it didn't seem we were ready for Title 42 to expire this week. I assume this buys you time to get more people & processes in place for the expected large increase. But not convinced an additional week (especially during holiday season) will be that impactful, but you (and Kamala) own this now so its your call.

Title 42: Biden administration wants Supreme Court to allow Trump-era policy restricting migrants to end -- but not for at least a week | CNN Politics

The Biden administration told the Supreme Court Tuesday that the justices should reject an emergency bid by a group of GOP-led states to keep the controversial Trump-era border restriction known as Title 42 in effect while legal challenges play out.

But it also asked for the court to delay the ending of Title 42 until at least December 27, citing ongoing preparations for an influx of migrants and the upcoming holiday weekend.

[Edward64]

Bought another 2-3 months to prepare for the inevitable even-more surge.

What is Title 42 and what happens next at the border? | CNN Politics

The future of Title 42, and the situation at the US-Mexico border, remains in limbo for now.

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the controversial Trump-era border restriction will remain in effect while legal challenges play out, a move that ensures federal officials will be able to continue to swiftly expel migrants at US borders at least for the next several months.

The high court stepped in days before Title 42 was set to end earlier this month after an emergency appeal filed by a group of Republican-led states.

That means the public health restrictions remain in effect – for now – as the court weighs arguments from the states and responses from the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union.

I think SCOTUS will ultimately strike down Title 42 as non-applicable. But wouldn't be surprised if the dissenting states/GOP do other legal maneuvers or use it as a negotiating chip if Biden will (belatedly) prioritize immigration reform (which he should).

The Biden administration has sent mixed messages on Title 42. It has criticized Title 42 and vowed to end its use at the border, but more recently came to rely on the policy.
:
But in October, facing mounting political pressure over a marked increase in migrants crossing the border, the administration announced it was expanding the use of Title 42 to expel Venezuelans into Mexico.

Joe, let's do Immigration reform next year. Negotiate & compromise with the GOP and come up with something. IMO pathway to citizenship is the key issue (non-Dreamers).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Joe, let's do Immigration reform next year. Negotiate & compromise with the GOP and come up with something. IMO pathway to citizenship is the key issue (non-Dreamers).

Insanely naïve of you to think the GOP will EVER negotiate immigration reform. What is their incentive when they can continue to sell it to voters as a Biden failure?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Insanely naïve of you to think the GOP will EVER negotiate immigration reform. What is their incentive when they can continue to sell it to voters as a Biden failure?

I've said before and will restate, there are many shared goals that can be negotiated on.

The key crux is legalization/pathway to citizenship. The Dems want it. The GOP don't want it.

BTW Sinema hasn't given up.

Sinema Says Immigration Talks ‘Coming Back Strong’ Next Year (1)

The Arizona senator, who left the Democratic Party to become an independent earlier this month, outlined her plans Wednesday in an interview with Bloomberg Government. She and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) recently hashed out an immigration framework that failed to come together during the lame-duck session.

“We ran out of time in these last couple days before the holidays, but we will be coming back strong in January, continuing to build bipartisan support for our framework,” Sinema said.

[Lathum]

Guess you are that naïve...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've said before and will restate, there are many shared goals that can be negotiated on.

The key crux is legalization/pathway to citizenship. The Dems want it. The GOP don't want it.

BTW Sinema hasn't given up.

Sinema Says Immigration Talks ‘Coming Back Strong’ Next Year (1)

lol

[JPhillips]

It's very unlikely that anything will come out of the Senate, but even if the GOP in the Senate agrees to something, the GOP House will never bring it to a vote.

[Edward64]

I think its a good bet that the anticipated expiration of Title 42 was the main driver for the latest border crisis/influx. I'm guessing it'll happen again when SCOTUS is nearing a decision. Hope Joe has a better plan if SCOTUS strikes it down (or not).

Dramatic before and after photos show how flood of migrants crossing El Paso border has reduced | Daily Mail Online

During a visit to the border on Wednesday afternoon, Sergeant Eliot Torres, of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told DailyMail.com that the extension ‘helps a lot’.

Torres, who’s been stationed in El Paso since October, said the scenes across recent months have been ‘jaw-dropping’.

Responding to the Title 42 decision, he added: ‘It helps a lot - every little helps.’

Torres spoke at a stretch of the border near the El Paso neighborhood of Chihuahuita, where troops from the Texas National Guard have laid out around two miles of razor wire.

Other officials stationed around the border in El Paso also acknowledged the situation appeared to have calmed in the hours since the Supreme Court announcement.

[Flasch186]

@lathum

Careful, you might get suspended while FOFC has become a soap box for one. Perhaps that’s because many people are leaving to avoid having to read the same person’s diatribes that seem to just be targeted at himself or Reddit is just a better conversation forum. I dunno but someone recently posted a photo elsewhere of the top 5-10 threads here at that time and they were dominated by one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

@lathum

Careful, you might get suspended while FOFC has become a soap box for one. Perhaps that’s because many people are leaving to avoid having to read the same person’s diatribes that seem to just be targeted at himself or Reddit is just a better conversation forum. I dunno but someone recently posted a photo elsewhere of the top 5-10 threads here at that time and they were dominated by one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry. I post because I don't have friends besides you guys.

[Flasch186]

but do you post incessently just to hear yourself talk or smash down dissenting opinion or dodge accountability for things you've posted in the past all the while sucking up as much energy as possible, Colin Robinson?

[GrantDawg]

How did you know that was my alter-ego? Damn. You figured me out.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

How did you know that was my alter-ego? Damn. You figured me out.

The drama queen can go somewhere else. Maybe others will return to FOFC if there is more tolerance for opposing views and open discussion, without the insults and oblivious hypocrisy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've said before and will restate, there are many shared goals that can be negotiated on.

The key crux is legalization/pathway to citizenship. The Dems want it. The GOP don't want it.

Overshadowed by the drama in the House, Biden announced a limited, focused proposal. I like it, think its a good compromise personally.

Access Denied

The Biden administration announced new immigration policies Thursday, effective immediately, that will limit asylum claims at the southern border and expand the use of the Covid ban known as Title 42 while increasing the number of legal paths for some migrants to apply for asylum.

Title 42 will now be invoked to push thousands of Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans each month back over the southern border, but the administration will also increase the ways migrants can apply for asylum in the U.S. without making the journey north.

The administration’s plan will make it harder for migrants to seek protection if they do not first claim asylum in countries they pass through on their way to the U.S., a move critics say is similar to former President Donald Trump’s transit ban, which was struck down in courts.

I would like more details on what below bolded means. If "support" means that the sponsor is legally responsible to support (financially), I'm good. If it means some organization just signs a document without the legal responsibility, I'd want more reassurances.

The administration will begin sending up to 30,000 migrants from those four countries back into Mexico each month while allowing 30,000 asylum-seekers from those countries to apply to live and work in the U.S. for two years. Those accepted through the application process must show they have U.S.-based sponsors to support them, much as Venezuelans and Ukrainians have done through programs the Biden administration established for those countries.

But it'll probably fail because there is that legalization/path to citizenship thing again, a red line in the sand item for both sides. Joe, try a very focused proposal (e.g. nothing about legalization) on just increasing guest worker program, see if the GOP bites.

[Ksyrup]

These guys are probably looking for some reform/rehab:

Two suspects targeting an immigration services business in an arson attack ended up setting themselves on fire https://t.co/loJKVwo3CI pic.twitter.com/v8V98bwsbD

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) January 6, 2023

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

These guys are probably looking for some reform/rehab:

Kinda funny.

Guess they never learned the old saying "stop, drop & roll"

[JPhillips]

Not sure how you can look at the shit show of the GOP House and think a major immigration bill could pass if Dems were just a little more willing to compromise.