Biden's Immigration Reform

[JPhillips]

Background checks are done against a known list of those unable to purchase a gun. Determining citizenship is much more complicated. Again, can you prove citizenship if detained? Most people can't.

In terms of your question above, I also would be fine with everyone getting a unicorn pegasus and that's only slightly less likely to happen than deporting 10 million. The other three items you list are all doable in some sense, but there's no way to deport ten million people. It. Can't. Be. Done. The sooner we recognize that the better.

And 62% won't be supporting the policy when there are detention camps, misidentified people, deaths, rapes, and God knows what other horrors showing up every day on the news year after year after year.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is a fair pushback.

What I believe is the GOP want a fix. They just don't want the fix the Dems want and vice-versa. I'll quote myself from #152

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

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

So there needs to be a grand compromise somehow.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.




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.

What exactly do we gain by this? The cost of what you've outlined starts at around $500 billion. When you look at the economic impact, the cost to provide for separated families that are now on welfare, the estimated 1.5% drop in GDP, and any other variables that aren't covered in the initial estimates to just deport 10+ million people what are we gaining in the end?

Under your proposal we're swapping a workforce that's already here and filling jobs for guest workers that come and go to fill the same jobs. Is that honesty worth the pain that every single american would feel?

A path to citizenship, immigration reform, border security, and increasing guest workers as needed accomplishes the same with with far less cost, disruption, and doesn't make us look like Nazi Germany.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Background checks are done against a known list of those unable to purchase a gun. Determining citizenship is much more complicated. Again, can you prove citizenship if detained? Most people can't.

The data for background checks exist somewhere. I have to believe SSN or some sort of identifying "key" in the RDBMS exists somewhere. This "key" can be used to search other databases for the info. Let's start with the W-4 or G-4 or IRS database. People not in that databases(s) needs to be examined further for verification.

It is fair to say there is not one consolidated, accurate database somewhere. But then, one should be created anyway. We don't just want the "brown" people south of the border, we want the visa overstays also. And just so you know that this is not a new opinion from me, I'll quote myself from pg 2.

7) Implement a system that can track all immigrants, guest workers, identified illegals, folks that overstayed their visas etc.

In terms of your question above, I also would be fine with everyone getting a unicorn pegasus and that's only slightly less likely to happen than deporting 10 million. The other three items you list are all doable in some sense, but there's no way to deport ten million people. It. Can't. Be. Done. The sooner we recognize that the better.

Okay. I'll take the 3 out of 4. It's a start.

On the 4th item, there are a lot of smarter people than you and me. Have Joe/Trump set the goal/deliverable, fund it, put people in charge, give them infinite money and let's see what they can do. Maybe consider swapping illegal status for limited/temporary guest worker visa. Almost anything is better than giving illegals pathway to citizenship (other than for DACA or some exceptions).

Again, with the approach of it can't be done, we would never have gone to the moon or countless other things.

And 62% won't be supporting the policy when there are detention camps, misidentified people, deaths, rapes, and God knows what other horrors showing up every day on the news year after year after year.

I assume you mean if Trump wins. Well, lets make sure Joe wins and he makes this a top 3 domestic priority (which he hasn't yet).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What exactly do we gain by this? The cost of what you've outlined starts at around $500 billion. When you look at the economic impact, the cost to provide for separated families that are now on welfare, the estimated 1.5% drop in GDP, and any other variables that aren't covered in the initial estimates to just deport 10+ million people what are we gaining in the end?

I don't know where you are getting your figures, but let's assume they are true, those nos. are "current state, current assumption" numbers.

I'm saying, set the goal or vision to get it done, hire a bunch of smarter people than you and me, give them a bunch of $ and backing, and let them figure it out.

Under your proposal we're swapping a workforce that's already here and filling jobs for guest workers that come and go to fill the same jobs. Is that honesty worth the pain that every single american would feel?

Continuing to my answer above, the smarter people may say, 100% removal can't be done without causing too much damage to the economy. Or they may say 100% swap-to-guest-worker can't be done. Whatever it is.

But I'm pretty sure they'll move the dial some. Using the 80-20 rule, I'll be happy with 80% done (e.g. don't let perfection get in the way of good enough).

A path to citizenship, immigration reform, border security, and increasing guest workers as needed accomplishes the same with with far less cost, disruption, and doesn't make us look like Nazi Germany.

If pathway to citizenship (and all that it entails with logistics, identification etc.) can be done, then changing illegals to "guest workers" can also be done (for the most part).

I don't see why we need to grant citizenship when temporary/extended guest worker (non-citizenship) can be provided instead.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know where you are getting your figures, but let's assume they are true, those nos. are "current state, current assumption" numbers.

I'm saying, set the goal or vision to get it done, hire a bunch of smarter people than you and me, give them a bunch of $ and backing, and let them figure it out.


Continuing to my answer above, the smarter people may say, 100% removal can't be done without causing too much damage to the economy. Or they may say 100% swap-to-guest-worker can't be done. Whatever it is.

But I'm pretty sure they'll move the dial some. Using the 80-20 rule, I'll be happy with 80% done (e.g. don't let perfection get in the way of good enough).


If pathway to citizenship (and all that it entails with logistics, identification etc.) can be done, then changing illegals to "guest workers" can also be done (for the most part).

I don't see why we need to grant citizenship when temporary/extended guest worker (non-citizenship) can be provided instead.

The Budgetary and Economic Costs of Addressing Unauthorized Immigration: Alternative Strategies - AAF

I'm going to trust the guy that was director of the CBO's group when it comes to numbers. And their number of $500 billion-ish is a decade old now. So probably close to a trillion now just to start.

Page not found - The Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS).

Some more numbers in the link above. We'd suddenly have a $6 billion shortfall in income taxes and we'd lose $12 billion of social security funding annually from people that don't take anything from it.

Also:

In addition, the United States is facing a severe workforce shortage, with workers needed in a variety of industries. Mass deportations would only exacerbate these shortages. Moreover, cumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be reduced by 2.6 percent, or nearly $5 trillion over ten years if the 8.1 million undocumented workers were deported. If the undocumented population was legalized, however, the GDP would rise by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. Finally, the nation’s housing market would be jeopardized because a high percentage of the 1.3 million mortgages held by households with undocumented immigrants would be in peril.

The GDP number here is higher than other numbers I've seen. But on the low end we'd be looking at a 1.5% drop in GDP.


To be honest, your seem to be for this without thinking of the impact and the solution of "get smart people together to figure something out" is on par with wave a magic wand and make things happen. The same with "there has to be a database" and if not then we need one. Knowing that the same people that are largely pushing for this tend to be on the right, how do you think putting their names and information in a federal database is going to go over?

There may be majority support now, but this would become massively unpopular in a hurry as soon as the real cost and impact hit people who shit themselves when gas prices go up a dime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The cost of what you've outlined starts at around $500 billion.

I think that's on the extreme low end. You're talking hundreds of billions, maybe trillions just to do the enforcement part. The massive loss of GDP, tax revenue, and inflation would be really destructive to the economy.

There's a reason politicians talk about this but don't actually want to do it. It plays well to racists but their donors would kill them.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think that's on the extreme low end. You're talking hundreds of billions, maybe trillions just to do the enforcement part. The massive loss of GDP, tax revenue, and inflation would be really destructive to the economy.

There's a reason politicians talk about this but don't actually want to do it. It plays well to racists but their donors would kill them.

The $500 billion was just the estimated cost to physically remove all illegal immigrants. And as I mentioned, that was a study from a decade ago. Just that part is probably topping a trillion now.

The 10 year cost/impact would be in the several trillions of dollars.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

To be honest, your seem to be for this without thinking of the impact and the solution of "get smart people together to figure something out" is on par with wave a magic wand and make things happen.

This is fair. But here's my rationale.

I've been asked questions and I've answered them. Then there are more "whatabouts" and drilldowns. Let me say this is perfectly fair (I'm guilty of it myself) but I think we can agree that I'll never be able to answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction.

And I don't claim to have all the detailed answers or solutions. I have the high-level guard rails that I want (but am willing to compromise in with a grand bargain, I believe in compromise).

So yeah, being a consultant myself, it is absolutely normal for big corporations or government entities to identify a problem, send out a competitive RFP, review the responses and select a partner to help solve the problem. They understand trying to solve the problem in-house will be problematic, they need professionals.

I've been there. It's not "waving the magic wand". I know it needs to go through a planning-analysis-design phase to answer all the questions that people here have.

And I do know you can't solve a problem by saying it's impossible to fix/do. There are always options, it may not get to the 100% but there'll be 80% solutions.

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.

[JPhillips]

We know Venezuela won't take anyone back, so what's the plan? Are we going to go to war to enforce deportation?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We know Venezuela won't take anyone back, so what's the plan? Are we going to go to war to enforce deportation?

Hell I don't even know how we go about proving where everyone is from to get to the deportation stage.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

We know Venezuela won't take anyone back, so what's the plan? Are we going to go to war to enforce deportation?

In consulting, a very common refrain when trying to come up with a plan/approach is

Hmmm, can we get creative?

Another "whatabout", see my answer to Atocep immediately above.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The $500 billion was just the estimated cost to physically remove all illegal immigrants. And as I mentioned, that was a study from a decade ago. Just that part is probably topping a trillion now.

The 10 year cost/impact would be in the several trillions of dollars.

Have you thought about the benefits though? You can pay twice as much for your produce and get on a 6-month waiting list to fix a hole in your roof. And think of all the empty buildings you can explore in your neighborhood when businesses can't find enough service workers.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So yeah, being a consultant myself, it is absolutely normal for big corporations or government entities to identify a problem, send out a competitive RFP, review the responses and select a partner to help solve the problem.

We should do the same thing to cure cancer. Just call up some professionals and let them deal with it. Why has no one thought of this?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We should do the same thing to cure cancer. Just call up some professionals and let them deal with it. Why has no one thought of this?

I think they have called up medical professionals, experts and consultants to help researchers. I mean great progress has been made in the fight against cancer? Or do you think we are still back in the 80sand at a standstill?

BTW I was on the periphery of the IBM Watson AI team working with a medical system on cancer stuff

[RainMaker]

I'm sure with trillions of dollars, someone could figure out the logistics of investigating, arresting, detaining, trying, and deporting millions of people on top of preventing them from coming back. It'd be a massive undertaking, but with enough money, you can likely make it happen.

The issue isn't that we aren't asking "professionals", it's that most experts on the topic have said that doing so would destroy the economy. Price inflation, supply shortages, lack of service workers just to start. The trickle down effects of food shortages and the gutting of the construction industry would be devastating to every American. Not to mention the national security concerns you have with a country unable to provide affordable food or care for its citizens as the national debt skyrockets while the economy and tax revenues shrink.

So it's not a logistics issue as much as there is not enough political capital to push that on to Americans so that you don't have to be burdened hearing a line cook speak Spanish at Chipotle.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So it's not a logistics issue as much as there is not enough political capital to push that on to Americans so that you don't have to be burdened hearing a line cook speak Spanish at Chipotle.

This is the part that always gets me. I get it that right wing media loves to politicize every violent crime committed by a migrant, but can one person here or anywhere claim how illegals have tangibly made their lives worse?

[JonInMiddleGA]

[QUOTE ] so that you don't have to be burdened by the most vile sort of criminal possible at Chipotle.[/quote]

Fixed that utter and complete horseshit you posted for you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Hell I don't even know how we go about proving where everyone is from to get to the deportation stage.

I guess we just get creative.

[cuervo72]

Does Rwanda have any more room?

/s

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed that utter and complete horseshit you posted for you.

You're voting for a lifelong conman and criminal who just got convicted of 34 felonies with another 70 or so indictments under his belt (not to mention all the civil violations over his criminal career). The law and order schtick isn't going to work.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This is the part that always gets me. I get it that right wing media loves to politicize every violent crime committed by a migrant, but can one person here or anywhere claim how illegals have tangibly made their lives worse?

The irony is that the violent crime rate actually goes up if you were to deport every undocumented immigrant.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I guess we just get creative.

That’s very good. Basic consulting 101. Do a bunch of brainstorming with the team (and others) to come up with ideas to analyze further.

Remember, never approach a problem by saying it’s impossible to fix. There’s always options with differing assumptions, risks, success rate etc. it’s typically a function of time, money, resources and leadership (or in this case, political will)

[JPhillips]

And how many innocent lives you're willing to fuck up in order to win.

[Edward64]

Another good consulting question. You’re getting it now.

Your question needs to be factored into the analysis. One key deliverable from the change management process is something we call ‘change impact analysis’ for positive and negative impacts, and then figuring out how to mitigate/remediate.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You're voting for a lifelong conman and criminal who just got convicted of 34 felonies with another 70 or so indictments under his belt (not to mention all the civil violations over his criminal career). The law and order schtick isn't going to work.

But it's quite obvious he's in total agreement with the "shithole countries" (and by implication, people) schtick so that's all that matters. Nevermind how disgusting it is to suggest that every non-American born fast food worker is a "vile criminal." Jesus.

[JPhillips]

The GA GOP just based a platform that includes repealing a bunch of laws allowing legal immigration and creating "voluntary" program that will encourage blacks to go back to Africa.

The cruelty is the point and no Rand consultant or blue-ribbon commission is going to make this work.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Another good consulting question. You’re getting it now.

Your question needs to be factored into the analysis. One key deliverable from the change management process is something we call ‘change impact analysis’ for positive and negative impacts, and then figuring out how to mitigate/remediate.

Ben Franklin says hello...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GA GOP just based a platform that includes repealing a bunch of laws allowing legal immigration and creating "voluntary" program that will encourage blacks to go back to Africa.

The cruelty is the point and no Rand consultant or blue-ribbon commission is going to make this work.

Exactly. Just like child separation.

They have been programmed for decades that brown people are bad and no amount of money, consulting, brainstorming, etc....is going to change that.

You can change policy, you can not change xenophobia and bigotry thats been reinforced over a lifetime.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Nevermind how disgusting it is to suggest that every non-American born fast food worker is a "vile criminal."

I know damned well you can read better than that. And you know damned well you can read better than that, so you should be ashamed of yourself. You wanna go at me, you can find legit opportunities well enough, but don't stoop to this sort of stuff in order to ... what? ingratiate yourself with the worst of the worst FOFC has to offer.

The vile criminal act is illegally violating the sanctity of the border.
And you knew damned well that's what I meant.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

For instance, when I was a law student, all law students were pissed at how badly we were treated during the bar admittance process and how ridiculously tedious and arbitrary the things were that kept people from getting cleared. Then, once we were cleared and passed the bar, all of a sudden we were like, "the bar admittance process is too easy. No one else should be admitted!"

I think we're seeing the same phenomenon with minorities. Seems like the thought is that minorities would stick together and it's basically white people who want to keep the "others" out of the country but part of what's fueling the GOP right now is minorities wanting to keep immigrants - even from their own background/country - out. We're here, but we don't need any more of us here. Shut it down.

I will respectfully disagree with you here. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you said about GOP party (that's a different discussion), but I am more disagreeing what you said in bold, specifically about how minorities view "immigrants".

You do not make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. There is a difference between controlled, follow the process legal immigration vs uncontrolled immigration.

I've looked but have not found any survey that asks the 2 direct questions in the same poll with same population, methodology etc. (1) do you support/want more legal immigration and also (2) do you support/want more illegal immigration. I strongly suspect the answers will be significantly different.

There are plenty of surveys that asks questions that one may infer the answer, but nothing as plain and direct. And it doesn't help when media like Gallup comes up with BS statements

https://news.gallup.com/poll/611135/...blem-list.aspx

Significantly more Americans name immigration as the most important problem facing the U.S. (28%) than did a month ago (20%). Immigration has now passed the government as the most often cited problem, after the two issues tied for the top position the past two months.

Then in the second half of the report, they talk about illegal immigration.

A separate question in the survey finds a record-high 55% of U.S. adults, up eight points from last year, saying that “large numbers of immigrants entering the United States illegally” is a critical threat to U.S. vital interests. The prior high was 50% in 2004.

IMO they are missing the obvious question of what do Americans think of legal immigration (and not conflating legal with illegal).

[miami_fan]

Many Americans say immigrants contribute to economy but there's worry over risks, AP-NORC poll finds | AP News

[Edward64]

So not to clutter up the Harris vs Trump thread, continuing the discussion here with @Passacaglia. The 3 links provides context for the discussion if others wish to participate

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion
Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

The only thing I see which points to you having a problem with a path to citizenship is from your post #317:

In addition to above quote, in my #317, I also said

My position is there are laws that should be followed. They definitely aren't perfect and both sides interpret & change them for their benefit. If we don't like the laws, change them through the legal process (and elections).

And to be fair (no one likes people cutting in line in front of them) ...

There are a bunch of legal immigrants waiting to get processed. A 2022 Pew estimated 673K waiting to get naturalized. A 2023 Cato article said 1.8M waiting for green cards. So, let's get the approx. 2.5M "legal" folks processed first at the very least.

And then the 3rd point, why give citizenship if people came in illegally when we can increase guest worker program and provide legal status (but not voting) for all the non-felon illegals.

Okay, now that I've kept that in mind, I'll call that racist.

Nowadays, it depends on your definition of racist. In the pre-BLM and SJW days, it was more tied to believing one group was born inherently superior than another group. Nowadays, IMO it's tossed around way too easily and often mixed up with bias/prejudice/bigotry.

But seriously, it sounds like you advocate for a policy of "open it up" -- given that you have that philosophy, why does it even matter who's legal and who's illegal?

Because the US cannot accept everyone that wants to come into the US and be a citizen. From a google, AI summary came back with below. I had a previous post that said the US was, by far, the country people wanted to immigrate to.

According to a 2018 Gallup poll, 158 million adults expressed interest in moving to the United States.

Therefore, IMO there is no way we can accept 158M+ new citizens. We can definitely accept more, but we're talking about +50% of the population.

And if you're saying "open it up, but none of them get citizenship" how is that not racist to say "you can live in MY country, but not actually be a part of it?"

I don't see how that is racism. I definitely have a preference for skillset vs family based immigration. I definitely want the PhDs. So, there is definitely bias and prejudice, but racism?

There are plenty (actually, I think most countries including progressive Nordic countries) that allow foreigners to "live & work" in their country under non-immigrant visas but not allowed to vote/"be part of it".

Before you get all defensive, keep in mind that your family probably came here from somewhere.

No offense taken. I am actually an immigrant myself.

And yes, I support citizenship for whoever wants it.

Per my quote above on the 158M+ that want to come over, it's really not practical. The US needs a process and to be selective.


In below thread, I answered how I would handle the 11M+ illegals as President.

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

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ adults that want to immigrate?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In addition to above quote, in my #317, I also said

Except because the laws are not perfect and both sides do interpret & change them for their benefits, a person's immigration status can go from legal to illegal and back again in a few strokes of a pen.

And to be fair (no one likes people cutting in line in front of them) ...

Immigration to the United States is based on everybody being placed in different lines with different priorities. No one is being cut in line as much as they are being told that their line or their place in their line is of less priority than other lines and other places in their own line. For example, a person could:

-come to the US on a tourist visa

-work in the US as a model while on that tourist visa despite that being a violation of immigration law, then get a H-1B visa(AKA “skilled workers” visa) three months later without leaving the country while still being a model,

- Get one of five EB-1 visa(AKA the Einstein visa usually reserved for Pulitzer, Oscar, and Olympic winners as well as respected academic researchers and multinational executives.) issued to people from Slovenia that year five years after that while still being a model. Oh and being married to a rich guy.

-Then became a U.S. citizen five years after that and immediately sponsoring her parents to not only get green cards but to become U.S. citizenship.

Yes, I am talking about the former First Lady but it is not about the who as much as it is to show how opaque immigration laws are and how they can be manipulated to fit the agenda you want.

And then the 3rd point, why give citizenship if people came in illegally when we can increase guest worker program and provide legal status (but not voting) for all the non-felon illegals.

Because as I showed above, we have been doing so in the past and continue to do so if we need to. We just manipulate the laws as needed.

don't see how that is racism. I definitely have a preference for skillset vs family based immigration. I definitely want the PhDs. So, there is definitely bias and prejudice, but racism?

There are plenty (actually, I think most countries including progressive Nordic countries) that allow foreigners to "live & work" in their country under non-immigrant visas but not allowed to vote/"be part of it".

HA! What about the last ten years of American history leads you to believe we want more PHDs to live here?

But if we do, maybe we can grab all of our PHDs from Mexico, Central and South America and Africa and then grab our field workers from Europe and Asia. Put this law on the books.

I refuse to feed into the narrative of non citizens being allowed to vote. Citizens vote, non citizens don't vote. What you seemed to be describing is some artificial level of restriction that comes from a line of thinking that says noncitizens should not be able to progress in U.S. society any further than the citizens are progressing and steps should be taken to put further restrictions on noncitizens to ensure citizens are ahead of them no matter what. Based on the history of the country when it comes to who seem to always get those restrictions and race, well if it walks like a duck...

Per my quote above on the 158M+ that want to come over, it's really not practical. The US needs a process and to be selective.

Per your quote above, 158+ people want to move here, not become citizens here. Whatever number do end up wanting to become citizens after coming have a pathway to follow. What is fascinating to me about your skillset preference argument is you want to give U.S. citizens a leg up over non citizens everywhere else except in this one area. The one area where U.S. citizens get priority and preferential treatment in the entire immigration process. Why would you want to take away this area of preferential treatment enjoyed by U.S. citizens in the immigration process since giving US citizens preferential treatment seems to be a priority for you everywhere else?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Except because the laws are not perfect and both sides do interpret & change them for their benefits, a person's immigration status can go from legal to illegal and back again in a few strokes of a pen.

Definitely true and hence my quote below. Crossing the border illegally is a crime and has been, don't think anyone has challenged that successfully in recent history.

My position is there are laws that should be followed. They definitely aren't perfect and both sides interpret & change them for their benefit. If we don't like the laws, change them through the legal process (and elections).

Immigration to the United States is based on everybody being placed in different lines with different priorities. No one is being cut in line as much as they are being told that their line or their place in their line is of less priority than other lines and other places in their own line.

There is definitely a queue on how INS process applications. I'd think me being case no. 1,020 out of 400,000 in the legal process, and now I am case 2,000,020 out of 11,400,000 in combined totals ... as being cut in line.

Theoretically, if INS had infinite sources, I won't lose my place in line and all the legals will be processed first. But they don't.

Yes, I am talking about the former First Lady but it is not about the who as much as it is to show how opaque immigration laws are and how they can be manipulated to fit the agenda you want.

If you have money and connections, you can get things done ... and cut in line.

Because as I showed above, we have been doing so in the past and continue to do so if we need to. We just manipulate the laws as needed.

Sure, the Progressives will try to contest the laws and find ways to bypass them. The GOP will fight to stop them. This is normal. Doesn't mean we should let a flood of illegals come in while it's working its way through Congress & courts.

HA! What about the last ten years of American history leads you to believe we want more PHDs to live here?

Okay, maybe I should have said PhDs in STEM.

I refuse to feed into the narrative of non citizens being allowed to vote. Citizens vote, non citizens don't vote.

That's not my narrative. I agree citizens votes, non-citizens don't vote.

What you seemed to be describing is some artificial level of restriction that comes from a line of thinking that says noncitizens should not be able to progress in U.S. society any further than the citizens are progressing and steps should be taken to put further restrictions on noncitizens to ensure citizens are ahead of them no matter what. Based on the history of the country when it comes to who seem to always get those restrictions and race, well if it walks like a duck...

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

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

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Per your quote above, 158+ people want to move here, not become citizens here. Whatever number do end up wanting to become citizens after coming have a pathway to follow.

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have gotten lazy just quoting AI and not finding a link. See below Gallup 2021 article.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/468218/...rate-2021.aspx

In 2021, 16% of adults worldwide -- which projects to almost 900 million people -- said they would like to leave their own country permanently, if they could.

The list of countries where potential migrants say they would like to move -- if they could -- has generally been the same since Gallup started tracking these data in 2007, with the U.S. topping the list of the most desired destinations every year.

This was true in 2021 as well. Just under one in five potential migrants (18%) -- or about 160 million adults worldwide -- named the U.S. as their desired future residence. However, this figure is down from where it was in all years leading up to 2017.

What is fascinating to me about your skillset preference argument is you want to give U.S. citizens a leg up over non citizens everywhere else except in this one area. The one area where U.S. citizens get priority and preferential treatment in the entire immigration process. Why would you want to take away this area of preferential treatment enjoyed by U.S. citizens in the immigration process since giving US citizens preferential treatment seems to be a priority for you everywhere else?

Sorry, I don't understand your point? Can you give an example?


Hopefully, we can agree the number is 158-160M would immigrate to the US if they could.

So, same question to you that I asked @Passacaglia

Originally Posted by Edward64

In below thread, I answered how I would handle the 11M+ illegals as President.

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

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ adults that want to immigrate?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Definitely true and hence my quote below. Crossing the border illegally is a crime and has been, don't think anyone has challenged that successfully in recent history.

And despite it being a crime, our country has had thousands of people enter the country illegally, then declare their entry legal on at least a temporary basis and has even gone so far as deciding since they were already here we would allow them to stay and even provide them a path to citizenship. Look up Mariel Boatlift for one. I am not debating whether it was right to do so then or whether that time should hold precedent now. I am saying that this the law is the law stance is not a thing when it comes to immigration.

There is definitely a queue on how INS process applications. I'd think me being case no. 1,020 out of 400,000 in the legal process, and now I am case 2,000,020 out of 11,400,000 in combined totals ... as being cut in line.

Theoretically, if INS had infinite sources, I won't lose my place in line and all the legals will be processed first. But they don't.

The numbers are out of whack in your example but let's go with it. If 400,00 applications for visas are in the queue for the legal process, you aren't 1,020 out of the 400,000. You are X number out of in whatever category of visa you are applying for from your country of origin. There are hard caps for the visas that are issued to each country and they are not transferable. I used the example before. Let's say for the sake of this discussion there are 15 employment visas being issued by the US worldwide. For whatever reason(see how this could be problematic), the employment visa cap for Mexico is 5, the cap for Liechtenstein is also 5 and the cap for Egypt is 5. If there are 15 applicants from Mexico who have been there for 10 years, and then 2 applicants from Liechtenstein and 3 from Egypt put their applications in this year, if the applications from Liechtenstein and Egypt are approved before applicant #6 in Mexico, the applicants from Liechtenstein and Egypt did not skip the line ahead of the Mexican applicant. They are not in the same lines. I would suggest that the current undocumented residents would also be in a different line.

If you have money and connections, you can get things done ... and cut in line.

Then the issue is not cutting in line, the issue is who is cutting in line.

Okay, maybe I should have said PhDs in STEM.

Science PHDs are public enemy #1

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

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

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

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

So, naturalized citizens(voting rights) and non-citizens(no voting rights).

If you are telling me that we are only naturalizing 100 people every year, that's fine. But if we are naturalizing 100 people who all meet the requirements to do so but we are refusing to naturalize certain groups because of where they are from, what they look like, or they are not in the top 1% of the country again walks like a duck...

BTW if I remember correctly, we Americans HATE when we are compared to those other places. We have our own way of doing this. I believe this is what we brag about re: immigration.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Let me know if we need to take a blowtorch to the plaque on Ellis Island.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sorry, I don't understand your point? Can you give an example?

When you break down how visas are issued by categories, about 70% of the visa issued by the US is family based. Using sports terms, the caps for employment(21%), diversity(8%), others(1%) are pretty much hard caps, the family based categories are very very soft caps. In theory, that means that only 37.5% of visas issued by the US should be issued to spouses, children under 21 and parents of US citizens. In reality, US citizens have and have always had a Larry Bird exception in this category. There is no limit for us. The category for children 21 and over and siblings etc(33.5%) is a little bit harder but again this category have more leeway than say employment.

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ adults that want to immigrate?

I will come back to this. I will say this is not an issue until we are honest about all the reasons people think it it is an issue.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have gotten lazy just quoting AI and not finding a link. See below Gallup 2021 article.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/468218/...rate-2021.aspx

Hopefully, we can agree the number is 158-160M would immigrate to the US if they could.

So, same question to you that I asked @Passacaglia

I did not get a chance to look over the poll so I waited until I had a a
chance to properly go over it. For starters, while there was 16% worldwide was a decade high, it went up a whole 2% from the low point of 14% in 2011 which was down from...16% in 2007. I guess we will see where it will go from there. Specifically dealing with US. I don't think anyone is supervised it is the top destination. I am surprised that the percentage has dropped from a high of 24% to the current 18%. I would think that would make people worried about the foreigners coming in would be overjoyed especially with the percentage of those choosing to go to Canada. For me, the most important part is this paragraph from the Implications section.

While the increase in the desire to migrate may set off alarms among those who are happy that the pandemic curtailed global migration, it’s important to note that Gallup typically finds that the percentage of those who have plans to move is much lower than the percentage who would like to move. Desire to migrate is not the same as intent to move. Not everyone who wants to move can move, or ever will.

Using the percentages that was used in an article linked in the one you posted as a guide, only about 8% of the global population that wants to move permanently plan to do so in the next 12 months or so. Using that scary 158-160 million number for those potentially coming to the US, you are looking at 12.6-12.8 people showing up at Ellis Island. Among the 8% who plan on moving in the next 12 months, 39% have actively made preparations to move which is define as taking necessary steps such as applying for visas or residency and purchasing tickets. That correlates to about 4.9 million people. Finally among that 4.9 million, 60% or 2.94 million have four years of schooling beyond high school or a college degree. So the vast majority of the people who most likely to show up on borders, are exactly the people we supposed to be giving priority to when it comes to allowing people into the country and are doing so legally. Do we want them here? I would argue that the focus on the 158-160 million scary immigrants as opposed to even considering the more realistic 2.94 million of people who are the most likely to come is an example of why I have the stance I do and why the distinction of legal/illegal immigration is meaningless.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

And despite it being a crime, our country has had thousands of people enter the country illegally, then declare their entry legal on at least a temporary basis and has even gone so far as deciding since they were already here we would allow them to stay and even provide them a path to citizenship. Look up Mariel Boatlift for one. I am not debating whether it was right to do so then or whether that time should hold precedent now. I am saying that this the law is the law stance is not a thing when it comes to immigration.

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

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

The numbers are out of whack in your example but let's go with it. If 400,00 applications for visas are in the queue for the legal process, you aren't 1,020 out of the 400,000. You are X number out of in whatever category of visa you are applying for from your country of origin.

There are hard caps for the visas that are issued to each country and they are not transferable. I used the example before. Let's say for the sake of this discussion there are 15 employment visas being issued by the US worldwide. For whatever reason(see how this could be problematic), the employment visa cap for Mexico is 5, the cap for Liechtenstein is also 5 and the cap for Egypt is 5. If there are 15 applicants from Mexico who have been there for 10 years, and then 2 applicants from Liechtenstein and 3 from Egypt put their applications in this year, if the applications from Liechtenstein and Egypt are approved before applicant #6 in Mexico, the applicants from Liechtenstein and Egypt did not skip the line ahead of the Mexican applicant. They are not in the same lines. I would suggest that the current undocumented residents would also be in a different line.

My numbers were just to illustrate.

Sure, the illegals would be in a different "line/quota". But there are now 400k legals + 11M illegals = 11.4M now. If you don't think the 400k schedule/process dates will be impacted by an additional 11M to be reviewed, vetted etc. then you have more faith in the INS than I do. There are already years and years of backlog for the legal ones.

Then the issue is not cutting in line, the issue is who is cutting in line.

The issue is both, it is not exclusionary. IMO there is line cutting and the 11M+ would be doing it.

Science PHDs are public enemy #1

Hah, in general, I'll take a STEM PhD over a Gender Studies PhD anyday.

So, naturalized citizens(voting rights) and non-citizens(no voting rights).

Yes. But not sure if I'm missing your point?

If you are telling me that we are only naturalizing 100 people every year, that's fine. But if we are naturalizing 100 people who all meet the requirements to do so but we are refusing to naturalize certain groups because of where they are from, what they look like, or they are not in the top 1% of the country again walks like a duck...

No, I am saying we have a legal process. The are quotas for groups of people (by country, by work/skillsets etc.). I'm saying its not by skin color. If we don't like the quotas, change them through the legal process, but in the meantime, if someone comes into the country illegally, then they committed a crime and are illegal.

If the PhD is black, brown, yellow etc. give them preference. If they have needed skills, give them preference. Skin color does not play a role.

BTW if I remember correctly, we Americans HATE when we are compared to those other places. We have our own way of doing this. I believe this is what we brag about re: immigration.

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

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

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

[Edward64]

What is fascinating to me about your skillset preference argument is you want to give U.S. citizens a leg up over non citizens everywhere else except in this one area. The one area where U.S. citizens get priority and preferential treatment in the entire immigration process. Why would you want to take away this area of preferential treatment enjoyed by U.S. citizens in the immigration process since giving US citizens preferential treatment seems to be a priority for you everywhere else?

Sorry, I don't understand your point? Can you give an example?

Originally Posted by miami_fan

When you break down how visas are issued by categories, about 70% of the visa issued by the US is family based. Using sports terms, the caps for employment(21%), diversity(8%), others(1%) are pretty much hard caps, the family based categories are very very soft caps. In theory, that means that only 37.5% of visas issued by the US should be issued to spouses, children under 21 and parents of US citizens. In reality, US citizens have and have always had a Larry Bird exception in this category. There is no limit for us. The category for children 21 and over and siblings etc(33.5%) is a little bit harder but again this category have more leeway than say employment.

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

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...n-system-works

An unlimited number of visas are available every year for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Prospective immigrants in this category must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. Immediate relatives are:

Spouses of U.S. citizens;
Unmarried minor children of U.S. citizens (under 21 years old); and
Parents of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent).

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

An additional limited number of visas are available every year under the family preference system for other non-immediate family members. Prospective immigrants in the family preference system must meet standard eligibility criteria, and petitioners must meet certain age and financial requirements. The family preference system includes:

Adult children (married and unmarried) of U.S. citizens;
Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (petitioner must be at least 21 years old to petition for a sibling); and
Spouses and unmarried children (minor and adult) of LPRs.

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I did not get a chance to look over the poll so I waited until I had a a chance to properly go over it. For starters, while there was 16% worldwide was a decade high, it went up a whole 2% from the low point of 14% in 2011 which was down from...16% in 2007. I guess we will see where it will go from there.

Specifically dealing with US. I don't think anyone is supervised it is the top destination. I am surprised that the percentage has dropped from a high of 24% to the current 18%. I would think that would make people worried about the foreigners coming in would be overjoyed especially with the percentage of those choosing to go to Canada. For me, the most important part is this paragraph from the Implications section.

And yet, the US is by far the most desired country to immigrate to, about the same as #2-4 combined. Below are stats from my Gallup link above

US - 18%
Canada - 8%
Germany - 7%
Spain - 4%

Using the percentages that was used in an article linked in the one you posted as a guide, only about 8% of the global population that wants to move permanently plan to do so in the next 12 months or so. Using that scary 158-160 million number for those potentially coming to the US, you are looking at 12.6-12.8 people showing up at Ellis Island. Among the 8% who plan on moving in the next 12 months, 39% have actively made preparations to move which is define as taking necessary steps such as applying for visas or residency and purchasing tickets. That correlates to about 4.9 million people.

Finally among that 4.9 million, 60% or 2.94 million have four years of schooling beyond high school or a college degree. So the vast majority of the people who most likely to show up on borders, are exactly the people we supposed to be giving priority to when it comes to allowing people into the country and are doing so legally.

My question to @Passacaglia was predicated on his statement

And yes, I support citizenship for whoever wants it.

Similar question to you: how would you handle the 158M+ adults that want to immigrate?

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

Do we want them here? I would argue that the focus on the 158-160 million scary immigrants as opposed to even considering the more realistic 2.94 million of people who are the most likely to come is an example of why I have the stance I do and why the distinction of legal/illegal immigration is meaningless.

I really don't know why bolded is true.


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

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

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm saying its not by skin color.

This is just not true. We recently gave exemptions to Ukraine immigrants over everyone else. We did the same for South Africans after apartheid.

We even have special adoption agreements with countries like Russia so that white babies can be adopted easier and obtain citizenship upon arrival.

Laws are laws as you say but to pretend their aren't preferences towards specific ethnicities and races is ignorance of the system.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is just not true. We recently gave exemptions to Ukraine immigrants over everyone else. We did the same for South Africans after apartheid.

We even have special adoption agreements with countries like Russia so that white babies can be adopted easier and obtain citizenship upon arrival.

Laws are laws as you say but to pretend their aren't preferences towards specific ethnicities and races is ignorance of the system.

My full quote is below and was me saying we should give preference to PhDs (or highly skilled) more than it is now. I reiterate, what I want to happen, not what is happening now.

If the PhD is black, brown, yellow etc. give them preference. If they have needed skills, give them preference. Skin color does not play a role.

But on your broader statement. Nothing is absolutely fair and equal.

There are definitely quotas by country (e.g. Ukraine, South Africans) and not specifically for skin color, there are guidelines for these. If you don't like the quotas, then change them through the process. Others will disagree with what you want (some more brown, some more black, some more yellow etc.), but then that's why we have elections and ultimately those rules are created/changed.

See link below. The table is not specific to country quotas but backlog on green card by country, you'll see there is plenty of yellow, brown included. So yeah, you may be able to find situations of bias/prejudice, but in-progress shows lots of different skin colors.

https://immigrationforum.org/wp-cont...n-Quotas-5.png

U.S. Immigration law imposes a limit on how many immigrants from any particular country can receive green cards in a given year. As demonstrated by the October 2023 visa bulletin, the U.S. immigration system is suffering from impressive levels of backlogs. Some people must wait upwards of 25 years from the time they submitted their application to the time that a green card became available to them.

I am not well versed on adoption agreements, but at one time I know there were alot of yellow babies from China being adopted. Is it the US government selecting who is adopted or is it the potential parents that decide?

[Edward64]

Speaking of illegal immigrants

MSN

Long before he became one of Donald Trump’s biggest donors and campaign surrogates, South African-born Elon Musk worked illegally in the United States as he launched his entrepreneurial career after ditching a graduate studies program in California, according to former business associates, court records and company documents obtained by The Washington Post.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

I don't think there is a better illustration of what I mean than the bold text above.

My numbers were just to illustrate.

Sure, the illegals would be in a different "line/quota". But there are now 400k legals + 11M illegals = 11.4M now. If you don't think the 400k schedule/process dates will be impacted by an additional 11M to be reviewed, vetted etc. then you have more faith in the INS than I do. There are already years and years of backlog for the legal ones.

If the priority is to get rid of the illegals, we can do what we always do. Change the laws/processes to turn the illegals into legals. You know like we do for those with money and connections.

Yes. But not sure if I'm missing your point?

We already have the categories you are looking for. I don't see the need for another one.

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

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

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

Let's put a pin in this piece for now.

[dubb93]

Is there evidence that we need MDs more than we general laborers? If we are prioritizing needs why aren’t we creating more MDs and importing more laborers rather than creating more laborers and importing MDs?

[JPhillips]

We specifically limit the number of MDs we can train each year and that number isn't enough to match the current population. We should train more doctors, but the AMA is against that so it doesn't happen.

[RainMaker]

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

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

But the PhD thing is just a way to control the ethnic and racial makeup of immigrants. It's not about bringing in more PhDs (why does that even matter?). A system like that would benefit wealthier, whiter nations. And there would certainly be restrictions on PhDs from less white countries by claiming they don't meet some accreditation or some subjective metric. The people arguing that almost always have a vision of their perfect immigrant and we know what they look like.