Trump's Immigration Reform

[miami_fan]

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.

With that I'm going to pick on the anti-Dreamers side now just because I think they provide the most stark illustration of what I am saying. Let's not inject all those other sticks of dynamite like Ukraine, Isreal etc. into this conversation. We have enough explosive trading chips within the immigration debate. I think it is safe to assume that people who don't want legalization of Dreamers are the same people who would want increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc. Not saying it is absolute across the board or not desired on the other side, just saying so for the sake of this discussion. Let's also assume that the people who do want the legalization of Dreamers are against increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc.

Now let's give both sides what they want. We are going to legalize the Dreamers and we are also going to get increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc. Why would anyone among the 60% that need to be convinced who don't want legalization of the Dreamers be accepting of that trade? I don't get the impression that the desire to get increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc. is more important to them than preventing the legalization of the Dreamers. I believe if it were, we would already have the reform completed. I also don't think anyone who among the 20% who wholeheartedly supports that trade has the gumption to convince/force them to accept that trade. I think that is the same for most of the issues on both sides. Until such time as that changes on both sides, I don't see how immigration reform happens because I don't think there is enough political capital in the world to make that happen. IMO, the only way it happens is if one side gets control of the White House and both houses of Congress, holds a super-majority in both AND have members unwilling to cross to the other side under any circumstances.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The difference is the Senate version is bipartisan and the House version is just GOP. The negotiations you claim to want are happening in the Senate.

This is fair criticism. The Senate has been the "more adult" in the room for years.

And the House GOP can say the House Democrats are so intransigent that they won't even negotiate so we had to do it ourselves. At least our Senate GOP was willing to talk to the Senate Dems.

We're in the same place we've been for twenty years. There's enough of a majority to pass an immigration bill with concessions by both sides, but the far-right won't let anything that shows promise come to the floor for a vote.

What did Obama and Dem House & Senate do in 2009?

Despite his promise to pass a major immigration bill during his first year in office, President Obama’s first major act on immigration came in August 2012. The president announced an executive order entitled Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which resulted in renewable two-year grants of protection from deportation—plus work permits and identity documents—for approximately 700,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the country as children.

What did Joe and Dem House & Senate do in 2021?

Joe did a lot of executive orders rescinding Trump's stuff and some wink-wink in keeping some. He came up with "U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021" which died in committee under a Democratic Congress.

It is absolutely fair to say the right wing extremists wanted nothing to do with giving legal status or citizenship to illegals. It is also fair to say the far left wanted nothing to do with a bill that did not legalize the illegals. These are 2 line-in-the-sand stances for the Dem/GOP House.

Or let's put it in another way. If the Dems said let's strip out the legalization of illegals from the Dignity Act, and we'll vote on it in a different bill. I'd predict the Dignity Act will pass quickly.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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.

I struggle with this statement because you have not made a distinction between legal & illegal immigration.

I think majority of Dems & GOP are pro legal immigration. However, it's true there is a shift in types of legal immigration. Dems like the more heavy Family based legal immigration. The GOP is trying to cut this down and shift more towards Skills based immigration.

I think the majority of GOP are largely against illegal immigration. Whereas, majority of Dems don't care enough to be against it because of the political ramifications.

Not saying it is absolute across the board or not desired on the other side, just saying so for the sake of this discussion. Let's also assume that the people who do want the legalization of Dreamers are against increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc.

FWIW, from what I've read, there is majority support by GOP voters for Dreamers getting legal status and assume that translates to Congress. So a better example is just using the 10.5M+ illegals. But regardless, we'll work with your Dreamers example.

Now let's give both sides what they want. We are going to legalize the Dreamers and we are also going to get increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc. Why would anyone among the 60% that need to be convinced who don't want legalization of the Dreamers be accepting of that trade? I don't get the impression that the desire to get increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc. is more important to them than preventing the legalization of the Dreamers. I believe if it were, we would already have the reform completed.

Per the highlight, the answer is not everyone in the 60% is adamantly against the Dreamer for E-Verify trade. There are going to be some that are undecided/doubtful but can be nudged. History tells us minds can be changed if they are incented enough (e.g. pork, more election funds etc.).

The challenge is figuring out what each of the 11% want and see if a deal can be made. It'll take a lot of work and negotiating.

I also don't think anyone who among the 20% who wholeheartedly supports that trade has the gumption to convince/force them to accept that trade.

I don't know about this. For Dems, if Joe or Jeffries asked me for my vote, I'd say "maybe, what are you offering? I'll take a new manufacturing plant for Space Force in my district" or "I don't want that oil pipeline through my district" or "Promise that you'll let my legalize Marijuana bill come up for a vote" etc.

I agree that are many in the 60% that won't change their minds (e.g. MAGA or Bernies) or some that are in vulnerable districts, but I'd like to believe there's 11% somewhere.

I think that is the same for most of the issues on both sides. Until such time as that changes on both sides, I don't see how immigration reform happens because I don't think there is enough political capital in the world to make that happen. IMO, the only way it happens is if one side gets control of the White House and both houses of Congress, holds a super-majority in both AND have members unwilling to cross to the other side under any circumstances.

Although I can see your argument, I am hopeful there is that 11% that is willing to say yes. I doubt there'll be a same party, super-majority in Congress anytime soon.

IMO there has to be backroom deals to get this done. And it's going to take leadership from the President to make it happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't get the impression that the desire to get increased Border Security funding, E-Verify, etc. is more important to them than preventing the legalization of the Dreamers.

An astute observation IMO.

That's not only a tradeoff I wouldn't make, it's one I'd actively lobby against.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

An astute observation IMO.

That's not only a tradeoff I wouldn't make, it's one I'd actively lobby against.

Personally, I don't think children should be punished for what their parents did or did not do. We are where we are, it is as it is.

I lean towards some sort legal status and pathway to eventual citizenship.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Personally, I don't think children should be punished for what their parents did or did not do. We are where we are, it is as it is. I lean towards some sort legal status and pathway to eventual citizenship.

Ill-gotten gains, plain & simple.

[thesloppy]

I never have and probably never will understand why immigration is such a hot political topic. What is the problem all this immigration is supposed to be causing me? Maybe the lowest personal tax rate in the entire history of this nation would be fractionally lower, if it weren't for all the immigrants?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I struggle with this statement because you have not made a distinction between legal & illegal immigration.

There is no need for the distinction. Our history is littered with examples of our lack of desire for both. I say that without assigning a value judgement. I don’t think that can be disputed.

FWIW, from what I've read, there is majority support by GOP voters for Dreamers getting legal status and assume that translates to Congress.

I assume the majority of Democratic voters feel the same way and it also translates to Congress. To my point, if both sides want this, they is no reason for there not to already have legislation in place to give Dreamers legal status. No one has to compromise to get what they want.

The challenge is figuring out what each of the 11% want and see if a deal can be made. It'll take a lot of work and negotiating.

See above. If they are not adamant about Dreamers being denied legal status, they don’t need convincing. They would be more aligned with the 20% who feel the same way, not by their choice but by the 60% who is not aligning themselves with anyone who are not adamant. If anyone was willing to change their minds in exchange for pork, election funds, increased Border Security funding or just about anything else, it was never as important to them as they would have had us believe. They would have flipped already.

IMO there has to be backroom deals to get this done. And it's going to take leadership from the President to make it happen.

You need people willing and capable of making backroom deals. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, the voters are sending fewer dealmakers to Congress every election.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

There is no need for the distinction. Our history is littered with examples of our lack of desire for both. I say that without assigning a value judgement. I don’t think that can be disputed.

We will agree to disagree here. There are different degrees of acceptance or lack of. Legal immigration is more accepted than illegal.

If you can find a poll to support your contention it makes no difference, please provide a link.

See above. If they are not adamant about Dreamers being denied legal status, they don’t need convincing. They would be more aligned with the 20% who feel the same way, not by their choice but by the 60% who is not aligning themselves with anyone who are not adamant. If anyone was willing to change their minds in exchange for pork, election funds, increased Border Security funding or just about anything else, it was never as important to them as they would have had us believe. They would have flipped already.

Most everyone has a "price", Congressperson included. For the 11%, no need to show your cards or give in too early if you can get something for the vote.

You need people willing and capable of making backroom deals. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective, the voters are sending fewer dealmakers to Congress every election.

I agree with this.

But Joe has done better than most here would have thought considering how divisive things were at the start of 2021. He got some deals done and hoping for one more for Immigration.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Regarding eliminating all non-Euro immigration. Provide a source so I can confirm, otherwise I'll call it the Twitter & Tik-Tok syndrome.

And the 10M, let's call it what it is. Majority of GOP wants to remove the 10M illegals. Important to make the distinction between legal and illegal.

On the Senate bill, probably because the House passed their own Immigration "Secure the Border" bill back in May 2023 that the Senate hasn't considered at all. So yeah, both sides.

The last President specifically banned travel from certain countries to prevent immigration from them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I never have and probably never will understand why immigration is such a hot political topic. What is the problem all this immigration is supposed to be causing me? Maybe the lowest personal tax rate in the entire history of this nation would be fractionally lower, if it weren't for all the immigrants?

A lot of people who are failing at life need a scapegoat.

[JPhillips]

The RAISE Act included reducing legal immigration by %50.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The last President specifically banned travel from certain countries to prevent immigration from them.

Sure.

Is that the same thing as "all non-Euro immigration"? That's a pretty big leap.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The RAISE Act included reducing legal immigration by %50.

I agree the RAISE Act would have decreased legal immigration.

However, the RAISE act is geared more towards a point system, Skills based vs our current Family based immigration. It would have decreased legal Family immigration and increased legal Skills based immigration.

Sounds like a good swap to me.

[JPhillips]

What do you think the wall is for? Eliminating asylum claims?

What do you think Trump means when he says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the US?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What do you think the wall is for? Eliminating asylum claims?

What do you think Trump means when he says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the US?

Again, need to make distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

The wall was for stopping illegal immigration. Didn't do too well. He should have just strongarmed/bribed Mexico to do the work, that has proven to work better.

I think he means "illegal immigrants" are poisoning the blood of the US.

He then said it again in a video statement posted to his Truth Social account on Thursday: "Illegal immigration is poisoning the blood of our nation. They’re coming from prisons, from mental institutions, from all over the world. Without borders and fair elections, you don’t have a country. Make America great again. We must win in 2024 or we will not have a nation. Thank you."

[RainMaker]

I think one of the funniest things about Trump is he says what he means and then people try to parse it into something more appropriate.

Trump official says Statue of Liberty poem is about Europeans | PBS NewsHour


You don't need a secret decoder ring for him.

[Edward64]

FWIW from this month. Half means more than the Trump diehard of 38-42%.

https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-po...-trump-1860603

A new CBS News Poll released on Sunday shows nearly half of U.S. voters surveyed agree with former President Donald Trump's controversial comment that illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood" of the country.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree the RAISE Act would have decreased legal immigration.

However, the RAISE act is geared more towards a point system, Skills based vs our current Family based immigration. It would have decreased legal Family immigration and increased legal Skills based immigration.

Sounds like a good swap to me.

RAISE would have cut green cards issued per year by 50%. It would have been a drastic reduction in legal immigration.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW from this month. Half means more than the Trump diehard of 38-42%.

https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-po...-trump-1860603

47% agreed, 53% disagreed. I don't know why anyone would be celebrating Trump ripping a quote from Hitler, but here we are.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

RAISE would have cut green cards issued per year by 50%. It would have been a drastic reduction in legal immigration.

So?

Again, not a bad deal to do Skills based immigration.

400 Bad Request

Sponsors of the RAISE Act expect it to reduce legal immigration by about 40 percent in the first year, with reductions rising to 50 percent by year 10.

In addition, the sponsors expect the bill to increase the portion of legal immigrants with college degrees. Based on the parameters of the law, we estimate that 75 percent is likely the upper bound on the portion of highly skilled legal immigrants.

Finally, the sponsors expect to achieve higher wages for working Americans. More information about the RAISE Act can be found in the full text of the bill, from Senator Cotton, and from the White House.

[RainMaker]

For a country struggling to hire lower-paying jobs in the service industry, it's an interesting tactic to cut those immigrants coming in and bring in those with skills.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

47% agreed, 53% disagreed. I don't know why anyone would be celebrating Trump ripping a quote from Hitler, but here we are.

The poll below, questions #30 & #31. You're right about %, sorry I just grabbed it from the Newsweek headline. Still a significant chunk.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-new...lood-language/

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

For a country struggling to hire lower-paying jobs in the service industry, it's an interesting tactic to cut those immigrants coming in and bring in those with skills.

Agree.

RAISE wouldn't have been the ideal. Definitely need to allow more legal "guest workers". But still in the right direction to get more Skills based immigration.

[RainMaker]

Also, illegal immigration can be mostly solved by holding employers liable for hiring illegal immigrants. Large fines and prison terms would solve the problem overnight.

But our laws have to be made so business owners and wealthy people have absolutely not a shred of accountability for breaking the law.

[RainMaker]

Trump gave clemency or commuted the sentence of someone who owned a meat packing plant that was hiring hundreds of undocumented immigrants under the table. I don't think I saw a single Republican complain about that.

That's sort of the other issue. A lot of the immigration stuff is more about race than any law they feel needs to be upheld. I don't think I've seen a single person complain about the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees that have come to America. There is a lot of complaints about Nigerian refugees despite their massive success when entering the United States.

So you have politicians trying to thread the needle where they want to ban immigrants that are not white, but can't outright say that (although I guess Trump is).

[flere-imsaho]

Trump's wife violated the terms of her travel visa to find work in the United States and then later used "chain migration" to get her parents to the United States, a practice openly criticized by her husband and his followers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Agree.

RAISE wouldn't have been the ideal. Definitely need to allow more legal "guest workers". But still in the right direction to get more Skills based immigration.

You keep saying there's a difference between illegal and legal, but raise shows there isn't. A lot of the GOP wants to greatly reduce all immigration, and if you listen to what they say it's clear they want to greatly reduce or eliminate non-Euro immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also, illegal immigration can be mostly solved by holding employers liable for hiring illegal immigrants. Large fines and prison terms would solve the problem overnight.

But our laws have to be made so business owners and wealthy people have absolutely not a shred of accountability for breaking the law.

Illegal immigration can also mostly be solved by preventing illegals crossing the border. Strong arming and/or bribing Mexico would solve the problem overnight.

But our laws have to be made so politicians & businesses on both sides benefit from illegal immigration or, at least, the lack of enforcement.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So you have politicians trying to thread the needle where they want to ban immigrants that are not white, but can't outright say that (although I guess Trump is).

There is no doubt there is some prejudice and bigotry at play with RAISE.

However, the RAISE bill would have benefited other minorities. Instead of the brown ones south of the border, it would have benefited the yellow and brown ones in Asia.

Just a moment...

Under the RAISE Act’s allocation of more points for a higher-paying job offer, English skills, and a U.S.-based STEM degree, those already studying in the United States or working on an H-1B visa would remain at a strong advantage for an employment-based green card. The countries that have the most H-1B workers—India and China—and those that send the most students to the United States—China, India, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea – would thus likely dominant the points-based visas system, with some additional advantage to nationals of English-speaking countries.

Similarly, about tossing affirmative action in top schools. One argument is that it a racist and prejudices against minorities. The other argument is that it actually helps Asian students more as they do better in grades and entrance exams. In fact, it was Asians that were participants in one/some of the lawsuits.

So not your brown minorities. But other brown/yellow minorites benefits more.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You keep saying there's a difference between illegal and legal, but raise shows there isn't.

I don't track. You are going to need to spell this out for me, how does RAISE show there isn't a difference?

FWIW, I didn't bring up RAISE to justify any of my position. You brought it up to justify your position and I just responded to your questions. I much prefer Dignity Act to RAISE.

But to carry the thought exercise between the difference between legals & illegals. See quote below. Doesn't below show that there are major differences of opinion (e.g. acceptance levels) between legal and illegals?

There are other polls that show similar. I'd ask again, provide me a link that shows there is no distinction between opinions on legal or illegals?

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

Nearly three‐​fourths (71%) of Americans say it is “unacceptable” for people to illegally immigrate to the U.S., although most (56%) support making the legal immigration process easier and 55% support providing a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented who are already here.

Strong liberals stand out, however, with 68% who say that illegal immigration is “acceptable.”

This question divides Democrats. A majority (55%) of moderate liberals (as well as 84% of strong conservatives) disagree and say it is “unacceptable.”

A lot of the GOP wants to greatly reduce all immigration, and if you listen to what they say it's clear they want to greatly reduce or eliminate non-Euro immigration.

I agree that a lot of GOP want to greatly reduce Family based immigration and replace it with Skills based immigration. I don't view that as bad.

re: non-Euro immigration, in post immediately above I posted a quote ... RAISE would have benefited non-white, non-Euro, higher educated people the most.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Trump's wife violated the terms of her travel visa to find work in the United States and then later used "chain migration" to get her parents to the United States, a practice openly criticized by her husband and his followers.

I don't like Melania so no big deal to me.

But, as I like to do both sides for context ...

Liberal celebrities also benefits from our messed up immigration enforcement, Prince Harry should probably also been disallowed for lying about past drug use. But he's here, facing no repercussions (yet, at least).

It's good to be rich & powerful.

[RainMaker]

I imagine Harry's status gets far more scrutiny than your average immigrant who had used drugs in the past. While I'm sure he has had advantages in the process, he's also been targeted more for marrying someone of mixed race.

Most celebrities are also on O visas (Harry might be on this). We specifically created that to attract talents. It helps us export our culture to the world which is probably the thing we do best.

[Edward64]

If you're referring to court of public opinion, sure. But that doesn't matter.

But if you are referring to INS targeting him because he married mixed race, you're going to need to provide a source. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to wild speculation.

And if you are going to give Harry a pass on the O-Visa, then same consideration for Melania for her "extraordinary ability" ... yeah, I know.

First lady Melania Trump reportedly got a green card through a program specifically for people with “extraordinary ability.”

The first lady in 2001 was given a green card through the elite EB-1 program, The Washington Post reported.

The EB-1 program is reserved for people such as academic researchers and multinational business executives, as well as people who have shown “sustained national and international acclaim,” the Post noted

Bottom-line. Rich & powerful gets passes. Harry got his. Melania got hers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't track. You are going to need to spell this out for me, how does RAISE show there isn't a difference?

FWIW, I didn't bring up RAISE to justify any of my position. You brought it up to justify your position and I just responded to your questions. I much prefer Dignity Act to RAISE.

But to carry the thought exercise between the difference between legals & illegals. See quote below. Doesn't below show that there are major differences of opinion (e.g. acceptance levels) between legal and illegals?

There are other polls that show similar. I'd ask again, provide me a link that shows there is no distinction between opinions on legal or illegals?

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



I agree that a lot of GOP want to greatly reduce Family based immigration and replace it with Skills based immigration. I don't view that as bad.

re: non-Euro immigration, in post immediately above I posted a quote ... RAISE would have benefited non-white, non-Euro, higher educated people the most.

You keep saying there's a difference between thoughts on legal vs illegal immigration, but that absolutely isn't the case when it comes to those keeping bills from being considered. The entire reason there hasn't been an immigration deal since Bush2 is because the faction of the GOP that is against all forms of immigration, legal and illegal, refuses to let a bill come to a vote.

RAISE would not benefit any ethnic group because the overall number would be cut in half.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You keep saying there's a difference between thoughts on legal vs illegal immigration, but that absolutely isn't the case when it comes to those keeping bills from being considered. The entire reason there hasn't been an immigration deal since Bush2 is because the faction of the GOP that is against all forms of immigration, legal and illegal, refuses to let a bill come to a vote.

First, let me say I appreciate you clarifying that it is a "faction of the GOP that is against all forms of immigration" and not the GOP as a whole per the below quotes. Under this clarification, I agree with you.

the GOP won't let any immigration plan through

The GOP leadership isn't interested in a compromise

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.

Second, regarding "faction of GOP ... legal and illegal, refuses to let a bill come to a vote". How did the GOP stop the Dems from voting on an immigration bill during Obama's or Joe's first 2 years?

Third, per my exchange with miami_fan which originated difference/distinction between legal vs illegal, it had nothing to do with "keeping those bills from being considered". Different context. Probably why we are talking past each other. See link below.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Biden's Immigration Reform

RAISE would not benefit any ethnic group because the overall number would be cut in half.

Again, I don't dispute this. I am saying it helps other higher educated brown & yellow minorities by +75%, just not your brown minorities and therefore, the bill is not against non-Euro. It has a preference for higher educated non-Euro.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you're referring to court of public opinion, sure. But that doesn't matter.

But if you are referring to INS targeting him because he married mixed race, you're going to need to provide a source. Otherwise, I'll chalk it up to wild speculation.

And if you are going to give Harry a pass on the O-Visa, then same consideration for Melania for her "extraordinary ability" ... yeah, I know.

Bottom-line. Rich & powerful gets passes. Harry got his. Melania got hers.

I don't think INS is targeting him at all. Mainly seems like right-wing groups demanding he be deported.

I don't know much about Melania when she came over. If she was a famous model or actress, she likely qualified. Harry sold millions of books so it's kind of hard to say he didn't meet the requirements for a Type O visa.

You can argue that we shouldn't have those types of visas but it would appear they both legally qualified. Don't see what the issue is.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know much about Melania when she came over. If she was a famous model or actress, she likely qualified. Harry sold millions of books so it's kind of hard to say he didn't meet the requirements for a Type O visa.

You can argue that we shouldn't have those types of visas but it would appear they both legally qualified. Don't see what the issue is.

No, I agree we need special visa categories for special people.

The issue with Harry is that he did not report his drug use on his visa form. The issue with Melania is she probably worked illegally under a visa she was under. Both got a pass. Arguably, regular people would have gotten more in trouble.

In his recent memoir, Harry confessed to experimentation with drug use, which could have potentially made him ineligible to immigrate under U.S. law.

Though most dismiss this lawsuit as political theater, it raises valid questions for those who represent immigrants. Prince Harry’s case underscores the need for comprehensive drug and immigration reform. It raises questions about his exemption from deportation despite his admission to drug use in his memoir, highlighting the inconsistency in visa decisions from DHS.

Further, it emphasizes the importance of clear guidelines and fair treatment to ensure equal application of the law.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We will agree to disagree here. There are different degrees of acceptance or lack of. Legal immigration is more accepted than illegal.

If you can find a poll to support your contention it makes no difference, please provide a link.

If there is a lack of desire for immigration among the voting public, and based on that lack of desire or based on their own personal lack of desire, lawmakers creates laws which restricts immigration to the U.S. , yes legal immigration under those laws are guaranteed to be accepted more than illegal immigration. That is one of the purposes of immigration laws. To allow more (certain?) people in when desire is high and allow less people in when desire is low.

I don’t have surveys. I do have a brief history of U.S. immigration policy ironically from the Cato Institute which tells us a bit of what actions we have taken and why. Very little if anything in the country’s immigration debate is new. Check out the section about The Bracero Program.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis...od-present-day

Most everyone has a "price", Congressperson included. For the 11%, no need to show your cards or give in too early if you can get something for the vote.

DACA has been around since 2012, what are they waiting for?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

DACA has been around since 2012, what are they waiting for?

Because Obama tried to do the Executive Power thingy and got GOP riled up. And DACA was a stopgap, it allowed the undocumented kids to stay & work, but no path to citizenship, not big enough to get the 11%.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - Wikipedia

Republican Party leaders denounced the DACA program as an abuse of executive power.[53]

Nearly all Republicans in the House of Representatives (along with three Democrats) voted 224–201 to defund DACA in June 2013.[54] Lead author of the amendment Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) stated, "The point here is ... the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he's done both with these Morton memos in this respect."[55]

The real prize is the DREAM Act (or a derivation). This does provide the path to citizenship and has been around longer than stopgap DACA.

So, your question really should be how come the DREAM Act hasn't passed?

My theory is the DREAM Act by itself isn't big enough for the theoretical 11% to get what they want. For example, it doesn't address the bigger picture of "border security". So why should GOP vote for it?

Instead, it needs to be packaged in with the more comprehensive immigration reform bill (e.g. Dignity Act). There's where there's enough chips on the table where people want to play.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don’t have surveys. I do have a brief history of U.S. immigration policy ironically from the Cato Institute which tells us a bit of what actions we have taken and why. Very little if anything in the country’s immigration debate is new. Check out the section about The Bracero Program.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis...od-present-day

Thanks, I read the Bracero section which dealt with illegal immigration from Mexico. Similar struggles back then in illegals in the US.

If there is a lack of desire for (illegal) immigration among the voting public, and based on that lack of desire or based on their own personal lack of desire, lawmakers creates laws which restricts immigration to the U.S. , yes legal immigration under those laws are guaranteed to be accepted more than illegal immigration. That is one of the purposes of immigration laws. To allow more (certain?) people in when desire is high and allow less people in when desire is low.

Personally, this is what I was coming from.

So from your Bracero article, I'm thinking your point is reception/treatment of illegals have been the same in the past and now? I certainly don't dispute that.

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks, I read the Bracero section which dealt with illegal immigration from Mexico. Similar struggles back then in illegals in the US.


Personally, this is what I was coming from.

So from your Bracero article, I'm thinking your point is reception/treatment of illegals have been the same in the past and now? I certainly don't dispute that.

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.

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 highlighted the Bracero program it involved Mexico and it highlights many of the same issues of today. But the 1891 Immigration Act is right there. The 1924 Immigration Act is right there. The Emergency Quota Act is right there. Things like Operation Wetback and the walk around program along the tragedy that was the St Louis voyage and more recently policies like wet foot, dry foot policy are examples that show how unimportant the distinction of legal and illegal really is when we talk immigration. When we are tired of people or certain people immigrating to the country legally, we make it illegal for people or certain people to immigrate to the country.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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.

Sorry, I re-read the section again and it's either my reading comprehension or its yours. I don't know how you extrapolated that Bracero program section to the entire paragraph above regarding legal vs illegal.

If you keep the "illegal" and remove "legal" wording from your paragraph above, yeah then I can maybe see it.

I highlighted the Bracero program it involved Mexico and it highlights many of the same issues of today. But the 1891 Immigration Act is right there. The 1924 Immigration Act is right there. The Emergency Quota Act is right there. Things like Operation Wetback and the walk around program along the tragedy that was the St Louis voyage and more recently policies like wet foot, dry foot policy are examples that show how unimportant the distinction of legal and illegal really is when we talk immigration. When we are tired of people or certain people immigrating to the country legally, we make it illegal for people or certain people to immigrate to the country.

The program was to allow "guest, temporary, legal" workers into the US back then. It talked about some resistance and then delved into illegal immigration spiking when the program ended. It then talked about how US tried to remove the illegals and some effort to expand Bracero to alleviate the illegal situation.

Or put it in another way. Was there a concerted effort to remove legal immigrants? If so I didn't see it. The thrust of the section was dealing with illegals, with a sprinkling of legals being treated better.

But if you think I'm wrong, feel free to specifically post quotes from the Bracero section to rebut me. BTW the National Quota Act, 1891, or 1924 Acts were not in the Bracero section which you asked me to read.

Hence, my position below

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, I re-read the section again and it's either my reading comprehension or its yours. I don't know how you extrapolated that Bracero program section to the entire paragraph above regarding legal vs illegal.

If you keep the "illegal" and remove "legal" wording from your paragraph above, yeah then I can maybe see it.

My point was more of a general one not just limited to the Bracero program. But if you just wanted to limited it to just that I can. Here are a few.

1. The farmers were so outraged about the country being riddled with illegal aliens, they chose not to participate in the legal program preferring to hire illegal immigrants which they could pay less and treat worse. Oh yeah, the government also knew this was happening but as the article kindly stated “Enforcement was lax.”

2. We rounded up illegal migrants who were supposedly “virtually an invasion”, took them to the border, made them take one step onto Mexican soil, handed them a visa and (according to other sources I have read on the program) took back to their places of employment in the U.S.

3. In 1951, AMERICANS called the U.S. Border Patrol a Gestapo outfit for taking away their workers or you know doing what they were suppose to be doing. In response, the INS commissioner basically made the legal immigration rules as easy and as cheap as possible allowing workers to hire those legal workers who everyone was screaming about being illegal the day before.

You can’t honestly look at those examples and still say the distinction between legal and illegal is one that was taken seriously. We accepted illegal immigration and made it legal.

Or put it in another way. Was there a concerted effort to remove legal immigrants? If so I didn't see it. The thrust of the section was dealing with illegals, with a sprinkling of legals being treated better.

Of course not. There was also no effort to send them home either when they went from legal to illegal. The section specifically stated that few Mexicans wanted to enter the U.S. illegally. In fact many had concerns about their safety whether they were legal or illegal.

Much like today, if the workers did the “right thing” or the farmers did the “right thing” when the time was up, who was going to work the farm? Who do you think a large percentage of the illegal workers were? Much like today, they were legal immigrants who never left, ones that many(not all) Americans knew never left but accepted they are still here for a variety of reasons. Then one day, we decided it was time for them to.

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.

And the examples above show the distinction between legal and illegal only matter when we want it to matter.

Regardless there are tons of other examples of what I am talking about on that page and others throughout history. I haven’t even gotten to first hand accounts about how we the general public have treated immigrants in general then and now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

My point was more of a general one not just limited to the Bracero program. But if you just wanted to limited it to just that I can. Here are a few.

1. The farmers were so outraged about the country being riddled with illegal aliens, they chose not to participate in the legal program preferring to hire illegal immigrants which they could pay less and treat worse. Oh yeah, the government also knew this was happening but as the article kindly stated “Enforcement was lax.”

Yes, it did say that. No numbers given on how many hired illegals. But same paragraph said 4.5M entered legally through Bracero. For rough comparison, further down said there were about 2M illegal in the 1950s. Pretty significant distinction.

2. We rounded up illegal migrants who were supposedly “virtually an invasion”, took them to the border, made them take one step onto Mexican soil, handed them a visa and (according to other sources I have read on the program) took back to their places of employment in the U.S.

Yup. Operation Wetback or walk-around statute. Legal immigrants weren't affected and illegals were treated differently. Another distinction.

3. In 1951, AMERICANS called the U.S. Border Patrol a Gestapo outfit for taking away their workers or you know doing what they were suppose to be doing. In response, the INS commissioner basically made the legal immigration rules as easy and as cheap as possible allowing workers to hire those legal workers who everyone was screaming about being illegal the day before.

Another example where legal workers weren't affected and illegal were treated differently. Another distinction.

You can’t honestly look at those examples and still say the distinction between legal and illegal is one that was taken seriously. We accepted illegal immigration and made it legal.

From the examples, we did made "some" illegal workers legal through round about ways. The difference in treatment (back then) between illegal and legals is evident the distinction needs to be made.

Let me put it this way. If I was a legal immigrant back in the 50s. I would not want to be treated like the illegal immigrants in your examples. I would not have wanted to be clumped into that group.

I think your focus is on government & businesses somehow making illegals into legals. I can concede that point (although we don't really know the relative scale vs legals). But even with that, legal immigrants were not impacted adversely and presumably they were left alone to do what they wanted.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Of course not. There was also no effort to send them home either when they went from legal to illegal. The section specifically stated that few Mexicans wanted to enter the U.S. illegally. In fact many had concerns about their safety whether they were legal or illegal.

I couldn't find above highlight. Please provide the quote so I can read the context.

Much like today, if the workers did the “right thing” or the farmers did the “right thing” when the time was up, who was going to work the farm? Who do you think a large percentage of the illegal workers were?

There is no doubt we need increased legal "guest worker programs", or like the past Braceros program scaled up. This is part of the Dignity Act and several other previously failed attempts.

Much like today, they were legal immigrants who never left, ones that many(not all) Americans knew never left but accepted they are still here for a variety of reasons. Then one day, we decided it was time for them to.

Not sure what the point of this is?

And the examples above show the distinction between legal and illegal only matter when we want it to matter.

No. Your examples were limited to some government entities and businesses. You have not presented evidence that legals and illegals didn't need distinction or were treated the same; you showed there some political necessities made to work around illegals, just like there is today. Scale and degree matters.

My question to you is:

If you were a legal immigrant back in the 50s. Would you want to be treated like the illegal immigrants in your examples?

[NobodyHere]

I just got a survey from my congresswoman asking me to congratulate them on their job. For some reason no questions about their handling of the deficit appeared on the questionnaire.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I just got a survey from my congresswoman asking me to congratulate them on their job. For some reason no questions about their handling of the deficit appeared on the questionnaire.

Because that is so 2000's. No one cares about the deficit or debt anymore.

Tax cuts here, freebies there, big bills eveywhere.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yes, it did say that. No numbers given on how many hired illegals. But same paragraph said 4.5M entered legally through Bracero. For rough comparison, further down said there were about 2M illegal in the 1950s. Pretty significant distinction.

I am going to add these links here as other online resources. There are tons of them out there as recent immigration debates have brought this program back to the forefront. I would encourage you to look them up.

The Bracero Program: Cheap Labor for U.S. Farms

The Largest Mass Deportation in American History | HISTORY

Between 1942 and 1964, 4.5M entered legally though the Bracero program.

From 1942 to 1947, only about 260,000 Mexican braceros were hired, amounting to less than 10 percent of the total number of workers hired in the U.S. over the period. Remember these are the legal workers that would have been selected by the Mexican government per the agreement between the two countries. We know that illegal workers were rounded up and then were given visas without having to apply through the Mexican government. Is the distinction still significant?

Yup. Operation Wetback or walk-around statute. Legal immigrants weren't affected and illegals were treated differently. Another distinction.

Which legal immigrants were not affected? The original legals or the ones who became legal a little bit later. What about the legal workers who were rounded up right alongside the illegals because we weren't sure which was which?

Originally Posted by Edward64

I couldn't find above highlight. Please provide the quote so I can read the context.

Not in this section as there is a plethora of resources on the program. Check out the links in this post. Also Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. by Kitty Calavita does a brilliant job providing all the context. Even Wiki had a little blurb about it

Bracero Program - Wikipedia

In Texas, the program was banned by Mexico for several years during the mid-1940s due to the discrimination and maltreatment of Mexicans, which included lynchings along the border. Texas Governor Coke Stevenson pleaded on several occasions to the Mexican government that the ban be lifted to no avail.[8]

Not sure what the point of this is?

Known illegal workers were not sent home. Why not? Why not get rid of them and just use the legal workers if the distinction was important. Why would we allow them to stay as if they were legal or even better immediately change the rules to make them legal? Why would we then make them illegal again as public sentiment changed? Because the distinction of legal/illegal only mattered when it was convenient.

My question to you is:

If you were a legal immigrant back in the 50s. Would you want to be treated like the illegal immigrants in your examples?

Reminder, a bracero was a legal immigrant.

"Hey Google, how were braceros treated?"

In her 1948 book “Latin Americans in Texas,” author Pauline R. Kibbe, executive secretary of the Good Neighbor Commission of Texas, wrote that a bracero in West Texas was:

“...regarded as a necessary evil, nothing more nor less than an unavoidable adjunct to the harvest season. Judging by the treatment that has been accorded him in that section of the state, one might assume that he is not a human being at all, but a species of farm implement that comes mysteriously and spontaneously into being coincident with the maturing of cotton, that requires no upkeep or special consideration during the period of its usefulness, needs no protection from the elements, and when the crop has been harvested, vanishes into the limbo of forgotten things until the next harvest season rolls around. He has no past, no future, only a brief and anonymous present.”

Assuming that it only got worse by the 50s and the fact that one of the reasons the program ended was abuse of the workers, my answer would be no.

Like I said before, my point was more in general than specifically about the Braceros program. But that program, what led up to it and what came afterwards are a pretty good reflection on the fluid way we look at legal/illegal immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I am going to add these links here as other online resources. There are tons of them out there as recent immigration debates have brought this program back to the forefront. I would encourage you to look them up.

The Bracero Program: Cheap Labor for U.S. Farms

The Largest Mass Deportation in American History | HISTORY

Between 1942 and 1964, 4.5M entered legally though the Bracero program.

In your first link, it shows that the majority of Braceros were not legal but illegal. See highlighted quote below.

From 1942 to 1947, only about 260,000 Mexican braceros were hired, amounting to less than 10 percent of the total number of workers hired in the U.S. over the period. However, American growers became increasingly dependent on Mexican workers and found it easier to go around the Bracero Program’s complicated contract process by hiring undocumented immigrants.

In addition, the Mexican government’s inability to process the unexpectedly large number of program applicants prompted many Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. without documentation. By the time the program ended in 1964, the number of undocumented Mexican workers who had entered the U.S. surpassed the nearly 5 million braceros.

However in your second link, I did see the quote below.

An estimated 4.6 million Mexicans entered the country legally through the Bracero Program between 1942 and 1964, and states like California soon became dependent on bracero workers. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Mexican workers crossed the border without permission and found jobs on the farms of employers willing to flout the law.

To break the tie, I went to wiki

Bracero Program - Wikipedia

To address the overwhelming amount of undocumented migrants in the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service launched Operation Wetback in June 1954, as a way to repatriate illegal laborers back to Mexico. The illegal workers who came over to the states at the initial start of the program were not the only ones affected by this operation, there were also massive groups of workers who felt the need to extend their stay in the U.S. well after their labor contracts were terminated.[9]

So in conclusion, I surmise that not all the 4.5M entered legally through the Bracero program. I doubt the stats are available as some may have come in legally but then per the wiki quote, overstayed and became illegal.