Trump's Immigration Reform

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not an attack, just a suggestion.

I mean, you are the only person here with their own private thread to go to because you regularly cause threads to devolve into absolute nonsense.

Should tell you something.

Appreciate you clarifying it's not an attack.

Not an attack either, just a suggestion. Maybe let your therapist read your FOFC comments (specifically about me) and see what he/she says? I'll be glad to get on a call with your therapist if needed.

[Lathum]

bringing up mental health, sick burn dude.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

bringing up mental health, sick burn dude.

Consider it a passive aggressive attack in kind.

You come back to FOFC after a self-imposed hiatus, apologizing for offending anyone. And after 2-3 months of completely ignoring each other, you decide to take a pot shot at me out of the blue.

Stop attacking me, and I'll stop attacking you.

[Flasch186]

Isn’t this why the other thread exists though?

When things start to get into definitions and measures and interpretations it’s supposed to go over there so that these threads can stay on track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

This thread existed to take this conversation out of another thread. Edward created this thread for this discussion. I don't get complaining about Edward in a thread created by Edward on a discussion Edward wanted to have.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Isn’t this why the other thread exists though?

When things start to get into definitions and measures and interpretations it’s supposed to go over there so that these threads can stay on track.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong. You can define it however you want to define it. I'm calling it your reading comprehension problem.

I created the other thread titled

Thread to hold extended & contentious Discussions

Post #1 says

Per Flasch's suggestion and my response (see below links), setting up this thread to hold any contentious overflow from other threads.

I don't consider my discussion with thesloppy & miami_fan extended and contentious. There was no attacking of each other. And if they did consider it extended & contentious, they are free to tell me and I'd stop or offer to move it over. They're big boys/girls, they don't need a busy body gatekeeper.

The sections only became contentious when you and your buddies attack me first, de-railing the discussions you weren't involved in the first place.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This thread existed to take this conversation out of another thread. Edward created this thread for this discussion. I don't get complaining about Edward in a thread created by Edward on a discussion Edward wanted to have.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

He's making up stuff. He's forgotten the real reason why that other thread was setup. See my above explanation with source.

[Flasch186]

I haven’t

Yet still I don’t understand why you get to attack people without repercussions yet if they point anything out about your FOFC character traits they do

Smh

GD

I did forget that this was an offshoot of another E dominated thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I haven’t

Yet still I don’t understand why you get to attack people without repercussions yet if they point anything out about your FOFC character traits they do

Smh

GD

I did forget that this was an offshoot of another E dominated thread

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hopefully, people can see that I do not initiate the attacks (sarcasm, personal) but am only responding in kind. Most people are more understanding that way.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We've "given up" illegal labor and made them legal back in 1986. So there is precedence.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia.

Just like we have always done. We just made those that are illegal legal which comes with certain pay, benefits, and humanity requirements that businesses didn't like complying with. So they went right back to and are still hiring illegal labor almost thirty years later. Our farming and more recently construction industries are addicted to the undocumented workers drug. BTW, scroll down on that wiki page and see what it says about the impact the IRCA had on the labor market, crime and you guessed illegal immigration.

I've answered what my threshold is below. The reality is since I do not control INS, Border Security etc, and because I believe compromise is necessary to get a bill through, I accept there will be some "leakage". I am willing to accept this leakage for something like the Dignity Act which contains stuff I support and other stuff that is questionable.

But my default position is get rid of all illegals either by kicking them out and/or converting (most of) them into non-voting, guest-worker-like visa.

I'm sorry but this is a cop out. You asked everyone for a percentage or criteria despite the reality that they don't control any government entities either. Once you say you have accepted "leakage", you can't then say that 0% is too much. The "leakage" is more than 0%. What if the "leakage" was 11M? So once again I pose the question back to you.

how much is enough? Provide a % or a criteria where you would say there's enough illegal immigrants in the US. Or is it open ended where there is no limit?

We don't need illegals. We do need legal alternatives with a holistic immigration reform bill. I stated below as my previous bullet #3. But you are right, without alternatives to current illegal labor (e.g. holistic immigration reform bill), it'll be a big frackup.

By not coming up with legal alternatives, we have chosen illegals. Not only could government reform immigration, business can choose to hire legal workers no matter what it takes for them to do so. I promise you, if farms said they fruit picking jobs available for U.S. citizens only starting at $500 per hour, they would have very little problem finding U.S. citizens to work for them .

I am saying if illegals are provided a pathway to citizenship, the 11M can greatly influence elections. There are approx 2M Cuban-Americans in Florida and they exert political pressure.

Anyone or any group given a pathway to citizenship can greatly influence elections. Every other immigrant (legal or illegal) who has become an American citizen and/or group who can organize themselves to exert political pressure. Do you have the same worry for every other immigrant?

That's right. And depending on what party you belong to, you either like or dislike how the Cuban-American population significantly impact FL elections.

And? Do you like every group that exert political pressure? I am not sure what that has to do with anything if the decision is to give the 11M a pathway unless you believe that the people that provide the pathway are trying to tip the political scales one way or another.

Good question. In my previous comments, I did not commit to either "lean Dems or Reps". It really depends if Dems/Reps change/adapt and cater to the new reality (e.g. what can they concede to the 11M illegals to get their votes).

That did not answer my question. I will ask it a different way. What is it about the current 11M that makes you not want them to impact elections by becoming citizens but not have a similar concern about any of the 23.1M naturalized citizens who may have gotten a similar pathway?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I'm sorry but this is a cop out. You asked everyone for a percentage or criteria despite the reality that they don't control any government entities either. Once you say you have accepted "leakage", you can't then say that 0% is too much. The "leakage" is more than 0%. What if the "leakage" was 11M? So once again I pose the question back to you.

I have said I am willing to accept a compromise based on what the immigration reform bill is. I have also said I support the Dignity Act even though I have some dislikes. If the Dignity Act passes based on 11M illegal becoming legal, I am ultimately okay with it. If there is no Dignity Act or any other compromise bill, I want 0% leakage ... as in, remove them all of them other than DACA and probably some special hardship situations.

So, to reiterate and be very clear:

1) Edward, what is your acceptance level for illegals, assuming no immigration reform bill, status quo deadlock etc. Answer = 0% other than DACA
2) Edward, what is your acceptance level for illegals, assuming Dignity Act or some other comprehensive reform bill. Answer = I am good with what was negotiated and passed. If 11M illegals are given pathway to citizenship because Dignity Act also did X, Y, Z, I'm okay with it. I believe in compromise. I believe both sides need to give and take.

By not coming up with legal alternatives, we have chosen illegals. Not only could government reform immigration, business can choose to hire legal workers no matter what it takes for them to do so. I promise you, if farms said they fruit picking jobs available for U.S. citizens only starting at $500 per hour, they would have very little problem finding U.S. citizens to work for them .

I'd say by not coming up with a legal alternative, we have "defaulted to" illegals. Dems & Reps are dysfunctional, and have been for a while.

Anyone or any group given a pathway to citizenship can greatly influence elections. Every other immigrant (legal or illegal) who has become an American citizen and/or group who can organize themselves to exert political pressure. Do you have the same worry for every other immigrant?

Your question is posed as anyone or any group. The difference here is 11M is a big-big group.

So to answer your question - if its anyone or a small group, no problem. If it's 11M or 3% of population, absolutely.

It doesn't have to be illegals. I'd be worried if Israel/Ukraine/Taiwan lost the war and 9M /43M/23M Israeli/Ukrainians/Taiwanese were allowed to immigrate and given a pathway to citizenship.

And? Do you like every group that exert political pressure? I am not sure what that has to do with anything if the decision is to give the 11M a pathway unless you believe that the people that provide the pathway are trying to tip the political scales one way or another.

Yes, I believe allowing 11M to become citizens will do bolded. I believe your question is "how will they tip the scales" or "will they tip the scales to Dems or Reps". My answer is I don't know, it's dependent on how the political parties react. But it will tip the scales one way or another.

That did not answer my question. I will ask it a different way. What is it about the current 11M that makes you not want them to impact elections by becoming citizens but not have a similar concern about any of the 23.1M naturalized citizens who may have gotten a similar pathway?

I'm not sure the composition of the 23.1M naturalized citizens you quoted but assume they are widely diverse from all over the world, with a bunch of different skillsets, colors (black, brown, yellow), greater level of education & resources etc. Less homogenous, more diverse.

My question to you -

I contend the below. Do you agree or disagree?

there is nothing I can think of that the "economic benefits of illegal immigration brings" that would not be matched/exceeded with "economic benefits of legal immigration + increased guest workers".

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I have said I am willing to accept a compromise based on what the immigration reform bill is. I have also said I support the Dignity Act even though I have some dislikes. If the Dignity Act passes based on 11M illegal becoming legal, I am ultimately okay with it. If there is no Dignity Act or any other compromise bill, I want 0% leakage ... as in, remove them all of them other than DACA and probably some special hardship situations.

So, to reiterate and be very clear:

1) Edward, what is your acceptance level for illegals, assuming no immigration reform bill, status quo deadlock etc. Answer = 0% other than DACA
2) Edward, what is your acceptance level for illegals, assuming Dignity Act or some other comprehensive reform bill. Answer = I am good with what was negotiated and passed. If 11M illegals are given pathway to citizenship because Dignity Act also did X, Y, Z, I'm okay with it. I believe in compromise. I believe both sides need to give and take.

Oh okay, then I am changing my answer. If we get a comprehensive reform bill that has my requirements, then sure 0% acceptance level for future illegals. If we continue in the status quo, well then let's keep the status quo.

I'd say by not coming up with a legal alternative, we have "defaulted to" illegals. Dems & Reps are dysfunctional, and have been for a while.

In this situation, I see inaction as a choice. Both parties and especially the businesses that hire undocumented workers can always make different choices.

Your question is posed as anyone or any group. The difference here is 11M is a big-big group.

So to answer your question - if its anyone or a small group, no problem. If it's 11M or 3% of population, absolutely.

It doesn't have to be illegals. I'd be worried if Israel/Ukraine/Taiwan lost the war and 9M /43M/23M Israeli/Ukrainians/Taiwanese were allowed to immigrate and given a pathway to citizenship.

What are the commonalities among the 11M when compared to a big-big group of Israelis, Ukrainians, or Taiwanese?

Yes, I believe allowing 11M to become citizens will do bolded. I believe your question is "how will they tip the scales" or "will they tip the scales to Dems or Reps". My answer is I don't know, it's dependent on how the political parties react. But it will tip the scales one way or another.

I'm not sure the composition of the 23.1M naturalized citizens you quoted but assume they are widely diverse from all over the world, with a bunch of different skillsets, colors (black, brown, yellow), greater level of education & resources etc. Less homogenous, more diverse.

If Pew's information is correct outside of the Mexicans, the 11M comes from:

Brazil
Canada
China
Colombia
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
India
Korea
Philippines
USSR (former)
Venezuela

According to USCIS naturalization numbers for FY2023, here are the top ten countries of birth for people naturalizing in FY 2023,

Mexico
India
Philippines
Dominican Republic
Cuba
Vietnam
China
El Salvador
Jamaica
Colombia

Both seem like pretty diverse bunches to me though I would probably give the undocumented group the slight edge in being less homogeneous. I don't see why the folks in the first group would be better at tipping the scales one way or another compared to the second group.

My question to you -

I contend the below. Do you agree or disagree?

I lean closer to disagree only because I have never really seen what the economic benefits of a total legal immigration + increased guest workers system look like. I would have just said I don't know but I know it is cheaper to pay an illegal worker subhuman wages than it is to pay a legal immigrant or a guest worker. History has proven that. I believe if the business community thought that legal immigration/increased guest worker program matched or exceeded the benefits of the current system and would make them more money, they would have already adopted it already. That does not mean I think we should keep the current system. I'm all for comprehensive immigration reform. I reject any attempt to ban certain nationalities and/or limit other nationalities' attempts to immigrate to the country in order too bring in a preferred nationality or any of the other shady things that were put in place under the guise of immigration law in the past.

Sidenote: Interesting fact that I saw after you mentioned Ukraine and then seeing the former USSR on the list. 3201 filings in immigration courts by people from Ukraine since 2022. 67,904 filings in the same courts by people from Russia.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Oh okay, then I am changing my answer. If we get a comprehensive reform bill that has my requirements, then sure 0% acceptance level for future illegals. If we continue in the status quo, well then let's keep the status quo.

Okay. Just like I accepted the below answer in my discussion with thesloppy.

Okay. No metrics, not an issue until it's an issue.

In this situation, I see inaction as a choice. Both parties and especially the businesses that hire undocumented workers can always make different choices.

We'll agree to disagree here. I'll stand by my "defaulted to" vs "made choice".

What are the commonalities among the 11M when compared to a big-big group of Israelis, Ukrainians, or Taiwanese?

Little confused by this question. I don't care what the specific commonalities are, I care there definitely are commonalities because they are a very large group of people that share same/similar culture, beliefs etc.

I am generally pro-Israel. But if 9M Israeli's, majority of them with negative feelings towards Muslims (totally understandable there are negative feels in both directions), immigrated to the US, I would be very concerned.

If Pew's information is correct outside of the Mexicans, the 11M comes from:
:

According to USCIS naturalization numbers for FY2023, here are the top ten countries of birth for people naturalizing in FY 2023,
:

Let's look at breakdown nos. vs just list of countries. For illegals in 2021, Pew report (see graphic about midway) says ...

What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Latin America = 7,600 / 10,500 = 72.3%
Asia = 1,650 = 15.7%
Rest of World = 1,240 = 11.8%

For legals, there are plenty of articles out there that talks about migrants nos. but don't split out legal vs illegal. So let me know if you find different or more recent nos, but wiki with 2016 nos. says for legals

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia
(see table Origins of the U.S. immigrant population, 1960–2016).

Mexico & Latin America = 50%
Asia = 28%
Europe-Canada = 13%

(Looks like the Asians are losing out here).

Both seem like pretty diverse bunches to me though I would probably give the undocumented group the slight edge in being less homogeneous. I don't see why the folks in the first group would be better at tipping the scales one way or another compared to the second group.

A delta of 72.3% - 50% = 22.3%. Much more than necessary to tip any election.

I lean closer to disagree only because I have never really seen what the economic benefits of a total legal immigration + increased guest workers system look like.

This is fair, we'll agree to disagree. There are no studies that I could find, but I can't honestly think of anything that won't be captured with increased legal + guest worker type program.

That does not mean I think we should keep the current system. I'm all for comprehensive immigration reform. I reject any attempt to ban certain nationalities and/or limit other nationalities' attempts to immigrate to the country in order too bring in a preferred nationality

We have laws and quotas (based on country of origin, types of visa etc.) on the books. And I'm pretty sure any comprehensive immigration reform will continue them. I'm okay with the concept of limits but may not agree to the eligibility criteria or proportions

Sidenote: Interesting fact that I saw after you mentioned Ukraine and then seeing the former USSR on the list. 3201 filings in immigration courts by people from Ukraine since 2022. 67,904 filings in the same courts by people from Russia.

I read recently there are more Ukrainians not willing to enter military service now, which implies greater number wanting to leave. I wouldn't be surprised if that Ukrainian no. increases substantially.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This thread existed to take this conversation out of another thread. Edward created this thread for this discussion. I don't get complaining about Edward in a thread created by Edward on a discussion Edward wanted to have.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I don't think just because someone created a thread they "own" it.

I wasn't attacking him. He literally made his own private thread to have these long winded responses that often go off topic.

I made a suggestion and he immediately went to attacking my mental health.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I don't think just because someone created a thread they "own" it.

I wasn't attacking him. He literally made his own private thread to have these long winded responses that often go off topic.

I made a suggestion and he immediately went to attacking my mental health.

For the record, I consider sarcasm as an attack.

Originally Posted by Lathum

Can we get a GOP speaker of the house type rule where if Edward starts to take over a thread it only requires one vote for him to take it to his thread of private bloviation?

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola-

I vote yae

Don't cast the first stone. Resist the urge. Ignore me. Or get back in kind.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Little confused by this question. I don't care what the specific commonalities are, I care there definitely are commonalities because they are a very large group of people that share same/similar culture, beliefs etc.

I am generally pro-Israel. But if 9M Israeli's, majority of them with negative feelings towards Muslims (totally understandable there are negative feels in both directions), immigrated to the US, I would be very concerned.

But the 11M are not all from one specific country that is widely recognized as Jewish state. I have a good idea culture, beliefs etc. Israelis share. What are the same/similar cultures, beliefs etc. between Brazil, China, Honduras, the former USSR and Haiti that would make people from those countries be a formidable voting bloc in one direction or another?

Let's look at breakdown nos. vs just list of countries. For illegals in 2021, Pew report (see graphic about midway) says ...

What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Latin America = 7,600 / 10,500 = 72.3%
Asia = 1,650 = 15.7%
Rest of World = 1,240 = 11.8%

Let's be clear before we go any further. Mexico has the largest percentage of authorized and unauthorized immigrants and naturalized citizens. I am not sure why the decision was made to go with Latin American in graph then go to Mexico and Latin America and then to separate Mexico from the rest in everything else. Mexico is its own separate category when it comes to immigration. Now then, of the 10.5M unauthorized immigrants, 4.05M are Mexicans. When you take that 39% out of the equation, here is the breakdown.

NOTE-I'm not a fan of combining the rest of world in one when we could just show all the regional numbers that Pew used. Might as well give the complete picture.

Central America- 2.15M/6.4M =33.5%
South America- .825M, 12.8%
Caribbean- .575M, 9%
Europe and Canada- .675M, 10.5%
Asia- 1.65M, 25.7%
Middle East- .17M, 3%
Africa(sub-Sahara)- .325, 5%

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia
(see table Origins of the U.S. immigrant population, 1960–2016).

Mexico & Latin America = 50%
Asia = 28%
Europe-Canada = 13%

(Looks like the Asians are losing out here)

I gave you the origin countries of naturalized citizens since we were talking about voting but if you want legal immigrants that is fine. Once again, Mexico is by far the leader with 11.6M of the 43.7M of the total foreign born resident population as of 2016. That equated to 26.5% of the total. Excluding Mexico, here are the top ten countries of origin birth for immigrants, their resident population and percentage of the remaining 32.1M.

China-2.7M (8.4%)
India-2.4M (7.4%)
Philippines- 1.9M (5.9%)
El Salvador-1.375M (4.2%)
Vietnam- 1.35M(4.2%)
Cuba- 1.2M (3.7%)
Dominican Republic-1.08M(3.3%)
Korea- 1.04M (3.2%)
Guatemala- .93M (2.8%)
Canada- .78M(2.4%)

Since I want to be inclusive of all the regions, the first South American country on the list was Colombia (.69M, 2.1%), European is Germany(.55M, 1.7%), Middle Eastern is Iran(.39M, 1.2%), Africa (sub Sahara) Nigeria(.31M, .9%).

And here are the approved naturalizations in FY2023.

Mexico- 111,500 (12.6%)
India-59,100 (6.7%)
Philippines- 44,800 (5.0%)
Dominican Republic-35,200 (4.0%)
Cuba-33,200 (3.7%)
Vietnam-32,800 (3.7%)
China-25,800 (2.9%)
El Salvador-21,100 (2.4%)
Jamaica-20,200 (2.2%)
Colombia-17,100 (1.9%)

So no it is not a breakdown of 72-50. It is a breakdown of Mexico and everyone else with Asia coming in strong despite being on the other side of the globe.

We have laws and quotas (based on country of origin, types of visa etc.) on the books. And I'm pretty sure any comprehensive immigration reform will continue them. I'm okay with the concept of limits but may not agree to the eligibility criteria or proportions

We do not have quotas based on national origin per se. That officially ended in 1965 in part because they were used among other reasons to refuse Jews entry when they were trying to escape Hitler. Every country gets the same number of family based and employment based green cards allotted. That's right, Liechtenstein (population 39,039) get the same number of green cards as India (1,428,627,663). Not surprisingly, Mexico, Philippines and India are top three on the green card backlog list.

[Edward64]

There's a link in the article to the poll itself but it's a bad link. I was not able to find the poll itself, hopefully they'll fix it soon. I'm guessing its trending up but would like to know by how much and by demographics breakdown.

reuters.com

Some 54% of registered voters opposed the use of detention camps while 36% supported such a move and 10% said they did not know or did not respond, the poll found. Still, 56% said most or all immigrants in the U.S. illegally should be deported.

Some 85% of Republican voters in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said most or all immigrants in the U.S. illegally should be deported, compared to 26% of Democrats and 61% of independents.

A little surprised by the 26% of Dems, higher than I expected. That would not bode well for Joe but don't think illegal immigration is a Top-3 issue for most Dems though.

Not surprised by the 61% of independents.

If Trump gets elected and if GOP wins House & Senate, it'll be a huge cluster. A fascinating social & legal experiment (?) to watch. But it'll definitely be a cluster.

[Edward64]

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/liv...-24/index.html

The new executive action bars migrants who cross illegally from seeking asylum – a departure from decades-long protocol – once a daily threshold is met, unless individuals meet certain exemptions. The measure could be turned on and off and would be lifted when there's a daily average of fewer than 1,500 encounters between ports of entry, officials said. The action is set to take effect at midnight ET.

Interestingly, this article says 1,500. I read somewhere earlier in the week it was 2,500.

I guess better than nothing but doubt it helps Joe's election chances, probably hurts it. Pretty sure people can see through this piecemeal stuff and it just POs many in his party.

If I was his advisor, I'd tell Joe to announce that holistic legal/illegal immigration reform will be a Top-3 domestic item (after economy & inflation) and that he'll ask Congress to come up with a bipartisan bill for him to sign.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

A little surprised by the 26% of Dems, higher than I expected. That would not bode well for Joe but don't think illegal immigration is a Top-3 issue for most Dems though.

Not surprised by the 61% of independents.

A second poll on whether illegals should be deported, see question #62 pg 76 of 79.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.ne...20240609_1.pdf

Overall, 62% favor deporting "all undocumented immigrants currently living in the US illegally".

Independents favor 60% so that matches the Reuters/Ipsos poll of 61%. Democrats favor by 38% so that is a huge jump from 26%. Not sure I believe it though, probably methodology.

Other include Hispanics favoring 53% and 4yr Degree at 58%. Good to see I'm in the mainstream.

[GrantDawg]

I will just leave this here:

A new report from Capitol Hill is predicting the U.S. will experience an economic boost thanks to immigration.

The influx of potential workers could raise the country's GDP by almost $9 Trillion.@TheDomino explains more. pic.twitter.com/WCdsaQoPcZ

— MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) June 20, 2024

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I will just leave this here:

A new report from Capitol Hill is predicting the U.S. will experience an economic boost thanks to immigration.

The influx of potential workers could raise the country's GDP by almost $9 Trillion.@TheDomino explains more. pic.twitter.com/WCdsaQoPcZ

— MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) June 20, 2024

For some reason I feel that losing about 5% of our total workforce, focusing heavily on agriculture and construction, would be bad for the economy.

[JPhillips]

Don't worry, a 100% tariff on foreign goods will solve everything.

[Lathum]

I'm sure all the white workers whos jobs have been stolen by migrants will be lining up to pick produce in 110 degree heat or work in unspeakable conditions in meat packing plants.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm sure all the white workers whos jobs have been stolen by migrants will be lining up to pick produce in 110 degree heat or work in unspeakable conditions in meat packing plants.

The idiocy of removing 8 million people from your workforce is hard to understate. At this point you create a path toward citizenship for these people or we're going to deal with massive disruptions on a level we're not prepared to deal with if people aren't happy with inflation and the economy now.

If you gave every unemployed person a job replacing a person they want to deport we'd still have a significant employment shortage.

[cuervo72]

That's what all the breeding of extra kids is for (along with the elimination of child labor laws)!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

At this point you create a path toward citizenship for these people

Nope.

You don't reward invaders.

Intentional illegal entry, intentional illegal stay, and aiding & abetting in any manner same should be a capital offense.

Period.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You don't reward invaders.

.

lol.

Imagine calling people who pick your produce, pack your meat, clean your toilets, do your day labor, mow your lawn, etc....all the while paying in to a system they will never benefit from invaders.

[GrantDawg]

They invaded to serve you.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm sure all the white workers whos jobs have been stolen by migrants will be lining up to pick produce in 110 degree heat or work in unspeakable conditions in meat packing plants.

Florida is finding this out after they enacted their immigration law. Agriculture is getting crushed and getting a roof put on your home is like double the rest of the country.

Part of the dance is that politicians have to act tough on immigration but their donors are the people that need that cheap immigrant labor. So you end up with lots of talk and no action.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nope.

You don't reward invaders.

Intentional illegal entry, intentional illegal stay, and aiding & abetting in any manner same should be a capital offense.

Period.

Not quite capital offense but agree with general sentiment.

No need to have path to citizenship. But path to "guest worker program" is fine with me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

lol.

Imagine calling people who pick your produce, pack your meat, clean your toilets, do your day labor, mow your lawn, etc....all the while paying in to a system they will never benefit from invaders.

I give zero fucks if these criminals cure cancer, they ought to be fucking upon identification for violating the most fundamental principle of having a nation: a border. Our mishandling of the subject is one reason among many that we deserve to be considered a laughing stock among nations.

But as has been the case for many decades, the true worst enemies of a viable, meaningful U.S. are those within, not those without. Those who allow this stuff to happen, or provide aid & comfort to them, the worst offenders of all afaic.

[Edward64]

Below are some past posts of mine that highlights one of my key beliefs that we should increase legal immigration for the highly educated. Focus more on skills based than the way overweight family based/economic asylum that we have right now. And for the not so highly educated, allow for much more guest worker quotas.

This helps with our < 2.1 kids and smoothing out population dips, helps with getting a wealth of new talent, helps with entitlement program shortfalls, helps with brain drain with our "enemies", continue having guest workers do the work Americans won't do etc. ... and I'd bet this combination will increase GDP far more than $9T.

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

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

Allowing for a better skills based immigration (other than doctoral STEM and medical). An example is Nurses, we've had a shortage since the 90's

So, with that said, Trump's statements below today is welcome news. Unfortunately, he is such a narcissistic ass, and I know I can't believe much of what he says or believe he will follow through. But if Trump continues to play this up, Joe needs to respond. I can see this stance of "deport the illegals out but welcome the college graduates" resonate with a bunch of people, especially with Joe's current seemingly schizo immigration policy (hardass one week and then progressive the next week).

Trump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards | CNN Politics

Trump says he wants foreign nationals who graduate from US colleges to ‘automatically’ receive green cards

“What I want to do, and what I will do, is you graduate from a college, I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country,” the presumptive GOP nominee said on “The All-In Podcast,” which aired Thursday.

He continued, “And that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college — you go in there for two years or four years. If you graduate, or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.”

I honestly wouldn't make it that easy. For Masters & PhD's, yes assuming security considerations are taken into account. For Bachelors, maybe. For Junior colleges, I struggle with unless they are STEM focused.

All Joe needs to do to blunt Trump is for him to say "in my 2nd term, I will make immigration (and border security) reform a top 3 domestic priority after Economy & Inflation and will work with Congress to create a bipartisan immigration reform bill".

Imagine in the first 2 years of Obama Admin, or Trump Admin, or Biden Admin (when each President also owned Congress) what would have happened if wanted to make this top priority. But they didn't, they spent their political capital on other stuff like Obamacare, on Tax Cuts & Wall, on Pandemic & Infrastructure Bill etc. Then when they paid attention to it, they tried to slip it into another big bill, or 2 months before election day or BS like that.

[Mota]

Edward, this sounds like a good idea in theory, but look at how it was applied in Canada, where it has become a disaster.

Last year, 900,000 international student visas were given in a country which is 41,000,000 people. That's just for one year. An entire industry has opened up because of it. Strip mall colleges opening, with 90% "international students". The quality of education given is questionable. The value of the diplomas are non-existent. Even the public colleges and universities have gotten in on the grift, affiliating themselves with private colleges to get in on the sweet money. The "students" are given full work visas to work 40 hours a week for them AND a spouse. This has been changed back to 24 hours a week as of September. People are not here for the education, it's an immigration move.

This year the public sentiment turned, because entire neighborhoods have been taken over by student housing, 10-20 people in a house. I just saw a listing of a 1 bedroom apartment with 6 spots being rented out. 3 in one bedroom and 3 in the hallway. Only $480 a month! Because of that, rent prices are shooting up, I think they went up 20% across the country in ONE YEAR.

Even with the interest rates going up, housing prices have continued to increase because of the insane demand. Canada's population is growing at 3.2% per year right now, 98% of which is because of various immigration policies. That's roughly 3x the growth rate of the US and more in line with 3rd world countries than developed countries.

You're also having things like 800 people showing up for a job fair for 20 spots. It is difficult for teenagers and students to find a job, because of the extreme competition.
About 800 people applied to this GTA restaurant with only 20 jobsÂ*

It starts off innocent enough. But adding consumers to pump the GDP to prevent a technical recession only works for so long, and the PM Justin Trudeau is going to be run out of town as soon as the next election is called.

Sorry for hijacking the convo, but just wanted to point out how things can go with this strategy.

[JPhillips]

It would make more sense to have people directly pay for immigration status. Imagine for-profit colleges, but the diploma is actually citizenship.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I give zero fucks if these criminals cure cancer, they ought to be fucking upon identification for violating the most fundamental principle of having a nation: a border. Our mishandling of the subject is one reason among many that we deserve to be considered a laughing stock among nations.

But as has been the case for many decades, the true worst enemies of a viable, meaningful U.S. are those within, not those without. Those who allow this stuff to happen, or provide aid & comfort to them, the worst offenders of all afaic.

But look at it logically.

Who is going to replace the 10 million migrants who do the jobs white people won't do?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Mota

Edward, this sounds like a good idea in theory, but look at how it was applied in Canada, where it has become a disaster.

Last year, 900,000 international student visas were given in a country which is 41,000,000 people.

Hey, thanks for your notes.

You are right, this will need to be managed to reduce abuse and the negative side effects. I can definitely see real estate around schools going up, and I can see college tuition going up also. Probably also some US kids will be turned away from more elite schools as foreign students will pay the "out-of-state" tuition, and many are probably more academically qualified (higher SAT/ACT scores) for the limited seats.

My guess is Canada did this with the best of intentions. US is about 1.6 vs Canada's 1.4 birth rates. And the only way viable way to increase it is with immigration.

So even with the problems you noted, I do believe this is the best path for the US. We just need to do the Canadian lessons learn and figure out a better process.

I checked the foreign college population. In 2023, it was 347k undergrad and 467k grad. So, the ratios are not near as bad as in Canada.

Sorry for hijacking the convo, but just wanted to point out how things can go with this strategy

Seriously, your non-US POV was great. I wish we had more of that here.



FWIW. Looked up Canada's & US foreign student demographics. Looks like an overwhelming supply of Chinese & Indian students.

Canada

India at 319k, China at 100k

US

53 percent of all international students in 2022/23 were from China and India, comparable to the prior year. However, the market share for each place of origin has shifted, with 27 percent of students from China and 25 percent of students from India, in comparison to 33 percent from China and 18 percent from India in 2017/18.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But look at it logically.

Who is going to replace the 10 million migrants who do the jobs white people won't do?

They'll just complain about prices going up and be unable to connect the two.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They'll just complain about prices going up and be unable to connect the two.

I don't understand how Edward can be so concerned about the economy but support a deportation policy that would cripple the economy and food chains.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't understand how Edward can be so concerned about the economy but support a deportation policy that would cripple the economy and food chains.

If you look at my previous posts, you’ll see that I’m a proponent deporting illegals, border control but also for increasing guest worker quotas, and increasing legal immigration.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you look at my previous posts, you’ll see that I’m a proponent deporting illegals, border control but also for increasing guest worker quotas, and increasing legal immigration.

You're still removing 5% or the workforce. It's not like it's an immediate or even trade. There would still be massive disruption to the economy along with the money and manpower spent on deportation. Not to mention the disruption to housing and the strain on social and welfare programs. The estimated cost of just taking care of the legal children of those deported would be $120 billion.

Studies on Bush and Obama deportation programs showed that for every 1 million illegal immigrants workers deported am estimated 88k native workers lose their jobs because of higher costs that require businesses to scale back.

[Edward64]

Have the goals in mind, come up with a plan, execute the plan and then adjust as needed.

How long do we need for the deporting illegals, implementing border security, processing or exchanging illegals into guest workers, and increasing legal immigration? 5-6 years, sure. Longer? Take it. But work and make progress towards the goals.

To give you a simplified example of any project that I do. I understand immigration reform is infinitely more complex but there will be infinitely more money & resources. So take below as just a very basic structure

1. Plan the deliverable and releases (schedule)
2. Analyze
3. Design
4. Build/implement
5. Test/review results
6. Go-live with Release 1

7. Do release 2
8. Do release 3

In other words, I don’t think you can start with ‘can’t do this because of x, y, x’. It’s start with the agreed on goals and figure out how to do it.

[JPhillips]

Deporting ten million people means three thousand a day for ten years.

And what process will there be? Immigration courts are already overwhelmed. Are we going to add three thousand cases a day to the federal courts?

And how are they being transported?

And what if the home country says no?

There's no realistic way to deport ten million people and the sooner people recognize that the sooner we can come up with an immigration policy that's not based on fantsay.

[Edward64]

See my immediate prior post. Your questions will be reviewed in Analyze & Design phase by McKinsey et al.

In my experience, it is a function of time & money. And in this case, political will.

[JPhillips]

How many millions of people will have to be removed from other productive work so that they can focus on finding and deporting people?

Do you know what two documents prove citizenship for most people? Do you carry one of them with you at all times?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Deporting ten million people means three thousand a day for ten years.

And what process will there be? Immigration courts are already overwhelmed. Are we going to add three thousand cases a day to the federal courts?

And how are they being transported?

And what if the home country says no?

There's no realistic way to deport ten million people and the sooner people recognize that the sooner we can come up with an immigration policy that's not based on fantsay.

Come on, man. They aren't talking about processing. "Are you brown? Prove you're a citizen immediately or get thrown on a plane." This is going to be an "anyone brown and has an accent" round up. If a few (or many) citizens or legal immigrants get caught up in the net, oh well. That's what you get for talking funny.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't understand how Edward can be so concerned about the economy but support a deportation policy that would cripple the economy and food chains.

*insert Tommy Lee Jones newspaper gif here*

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How many millions of people will have to be removed from other productive work so that they can focus on finding and deporting people?

Do you know what two documents prove citizenship for most people? Do you carry one of them with you at all times?

You keep on coming up with "can't do this because of x, y, z". With that approach, we would never have gone to the moon, or created social security, or passed watered-down Obamacare, or passed the infrastructure bill (because the GOP will never negotiate with Joe), Elon Musk would never have created/advanced Tesla, Jobs would never have come up with iPhone (with the Newton fiasco) etc. ad nauseum.

I said before and I stand by it

In other words, I don’t think you can start with ‘can’t do this because of x, y, z’. It’s start with the agreed on goals and figure out how to do it.

My question to you is:

Forget the "can't do because of x, y, z". Assume all your problems can be solved (or at least mitigated some) as a function of time, money, resources, leadership/political will etc.

With that assumption, would you support/agree to the goals of (1) deporting illegals (2) implementing border security (3) processing or exchanging illegals into guest workers (4) and increasing legal immigration?

I suspect your answer will be no. And if no, why not? I suspect your answer is the real root cause of your resistance, not that 'it's not practical'.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Come on, man. They aren't talking about processing. "Are you brown? Prove you're a citizen immediately or get thrown on a plane." This is going to be an "anyone brown and has an accent" round up. If a few (or many) citizens or legal immigrants get caught up in the net, oh well. That's what you get for talking funny.

Yup, some inconvenience.

I'd think it was communicated why (though a change campaign, see my other notes on change management process) and a process can be created, over 62% would be okay with it, including 53% of Hispanics and 58% of 4 year college educated people.

Overall, 62% favor deporting "all undocumented immigrants currently living in the US illegally".

Independents favor 60% so that matches the Reuters/Ipsos poll of 61%. Democrats favor by 38% so that is a huge jump from 26%. Not sure I believe it though, probably methodology.

Other include Hispanics favoring 53% and 4yr Degree at 58%. Good to see I'm in the mainstream.

I mean, anyone can go into a gun store and get a background check done in < 30 minutes. There are going to be hiccups for sure, but the foundation is there.

[Lathum]

Hiccups=violating someones civil liberties is how we got Nazi Germany. Papers please....

[Lathum]

Edward- I get what you are saying but the flaw in your thinking is you assume the GOP, who by far are the loudest voices about this, actually want a fix. They very much do not.