The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Brian Swartz]

yes.

[RainMaker]

I'd hate to get a speeding ticket if you were in charge.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd hate to get a speeding ticket if you were in charge.

Not to disagree with your point, but I believe in most if not all states, a speeding violation is not a misdemeanor. Obviously, some extreme speeding violations (racing, excessive speed, reckless driving) could be misdemeanors, but most aren't.

[Brian Swartz]

It's got nothing to do with me being in charge, I'm just talking about the reality of what happens all the time in this country. Example: most DUI arrests are misdemeanors, carrying extremely similar penalties to illegal border crossings. There are 1.5 million DUI arrests every year in the United States. That's one example. In most jurisdictions, the felony/misdemeanor line is crossed when something exceeds a year jail time. We send people to jail for several months to a year for all sorts of things. Those are misdemeanors; those split up families. That's the point.

[RainMaker]

I think it depends on the state. Same with jaywalking. Pretty sure public intoxication is a misdemeanor everywhere.

[JPhillips]

How many misdemeanors include shipping your child off to another state with no knowledge of where they are or how to reunite?

[Brian Swartz]

I think I've already addressed that, but I would definitely hold that part of it is completely unacceptable.

[JPhillips]

So much of this comes down to the issue of cash bail which fucks the poor who haven't yet been convicted of a crime. Rich people don't lose their kids when they are arrested because they can afford to post bail and go home.

[RainMaker]

One weird thing I've noticed about the stuff Trump has problems with. They're all old stuff. I almost wonder if there is some weird thing with boomers where they get stuck on issues from 20 years ago. Similar to how our music tastes are heavily influenced by what we listened to as a teenager.

- Illegal immigration is way down. It's like a quarter of what it was in the 80's and 90's and that's been a gradual decline over the years.

- China hasn't manipulated it's currency in some time. This was an issue a decade or so ago, not now.

- Crime is universally down across the country over the past few decades.

- There isn't an automotive competition with Japan like in the 80's (when Reagan put those dumb tariffs on them). They build most of their cars here now.

- Coal is done. Technological advancements in the natural gas industry have just made it obsolete. And there are less jobs because mines are more efficient. Again, he think it's the 70's or 80's when this was actually an issue.

You could go on about NAFTA, the steel industry, tariffs, etc. It's almost all stuff that was a big concern 10-30 years ago. It's maybe what made Hillary the perfect foil.

It makes me wonder when we get older if we'll be stuck on the news today even if it's largely irrelevant. Will mass shootings go away and we'll still be treating them like huge problems? Will we be talking about fracking when that industry is on it's last legs? Maybe the key to getting the older vote is just focus relentlessly on issues from their past.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

- Illegal immigration is way down. It's like a quarter of what it was in the 80's and 90's and that's been a gradual decline over the years.

I don't know if you are trying to say illegal immigration really isn't an issue anymore because the numbers are decreasing. The numbers that I think you are citing are in "border crossings/apprehensions".

You are right, those numbers are decreasing. However, the total number of illegals in the US reached a peak in 2007 at 12.2 and now down "only" to 11.3 in 2015. Table 1, in link below, shows a good graphic from 1990 to 2015, you can see the historical trend and, IMO, you can see illegals in the US is still a problem.

Now if one doesn't believe the peak of 2007 at 12.2 was a problem then, I understand why one wouldn't think 2015 at 11.3 is not a problem. But we shouldn't say that illegal immigration is not a problem because crossings are way down, many are here already.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

There were 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2015, a small but statistically significant decline from the Center’s estimate of 11.3 million for 2009.

The Center’s preliminary estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2016 is 11.3 million, which is statistically no different from the 2009 or 2015 estimates because it is based on a data source with a smaller sample size and larger margin of error. Unauthorized immigrants represented 3.4% of the total U.S. population in 2015. The number of unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million, when this group was 4% of the U.S. population.

One interesting note on the Pew research, it referred to "illegals" as "unauthorized immigrants". I'm actually okay with this wording as I don't think "undocumented" (that some others here prefer) is accurate. I'll try to remember and start using "unauthorized" going forward.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As to the point about the conflict between morality and law, the problem is; who gets to decide what the moral thing is, when we are throwing out society's previously established decision?

The People. It’s written all over our documents.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I believe there is a place for civil disobedience, provided that it is respectful and expects to pay the price for such as a matter of protest. The only other thing I can say is to put to you directly the question already posed in my last post; what do we know of that works better? If it is ok to disobey a law because you think it is immoral, then we might as well not have laws at all.

A respectful act of disobedience? Wouldn’t that just be civility? Can you think of a social/moral movement that was successful because it was respectful? The very essence of civil disobedience is reacting to an immoral, disrespectful system. In way, you are saying: I expect the people being treated immorally show their displeasure politely.

MLK said in his last speech:All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.”

America’s greatness is precisely because of acts against governments protesting their (immoral) rule of law. It is not a zero sum situation, protesting and questioning laws is exactly what keeps us from being a totalitarian state.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Money for a wall and upkeep of a wall is a massive fucking waste of money. Especially if you can't walk on it or see it from space. How will space force defend us if they can't see the wall?

Maybe not see it from space like the Great Wall but I'm pretty sure Google Maps will capture it in all its glory. Besides the space force is for extra- terrestrial aliens, not the "unauthorized aliens" we've been talking about.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Problem is, rule of law without a willingness to adapt, expand, and reevaluate is authoritarianism. I think right now, in many ways, we’ve crossed that line.

There are just too many cases in our history where disobeying the rule of law was the moral thing to do. Devotion to words of the rule of law, rather than the humanity that inspired those words is dogmatic.

FYI, most of this comes from my lecturer on the Declaration of Independence:

Rights of people self-evident, God given.
●If rights are violated then people can descent.
●King given consent to rule based on these rights.
●King violated rights.
Therefore:
●Colonist can revolt and create new government.

The majority of the country (e.g. "the people") is against unauthorized immigration. Whatever dissent there is right now won't overcome that anytime soon.

If there is armed dissent (e.g. like a revolt against the British), I'm pretty sure it'll be quashed quickly.

The only way is to change or reform what you don't like through the legislative process. Elect a President and Congress that supports your views and make the change over time.

BTW - you can place much of the blame on the approx 35% of registered Democrats (vs 32% of registered Republicans) that did not vote in 2016 and therefore handed the world Trumpism.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know if you are trying to say illegal immigration really isn't an issue anymore because the numbers are decreasing. The numbers that I think you are citing are in "border crossings/apprehensions".

You are right, those numbers are decreasing. However, the total number of illegals in the US reached a peak in 2007 at 12.2 and now down "only" to 11.3 in 2015. Table 1, in link below, shows a good graphic from 1990 to 2015, you can see the historical trend and, IMO, you can see illegals in the US is still a problem.

Now if one doesn't believe the peak of 2007 at 12.2 was a problem then, I understand why one wouldn't think 2015 at 11.3 is not a problem. But we shouldn't say that illegal immigration is not a problem because crossings are way down, many are here already.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center


One interesting note on the Pew research, it referred to "illegals" as "unauthorized immigrants". I'm actually okay with this wording as I don't think "undocumented" (that some others here prefer) is accurate. I'll try to remember and start using "unauthorized" going forward.

Yeah, I'm talking about people coming across the border. Not people who've been here for a couple decades. Most of the rhetoric is about building a wall to keep people out. This isn't the 80's and 90's where floods of immigrants were coming across the border. The wall stuff made more sense back then.

[JPhillips]

2/3 of that eleven million have been in the U.S. for over a decade. There's no realistic scenario where millions of otherwise law-abiding folks with ties to their communities are rounded up and shipped to their native country. Whether you want it to happen or not, it's logistically and politically impossible.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

2/3 of that eleven million have been in the U.S. for over a decade. There's no realistic scenario where millions of otherwise law-abiding folks with ties to their communities are rounded up and shipped to their native country. Whether you want it to happen or not, it's logistically and politically impossible.

I actually agree with you for the most part (but I don't know what the cut off is, it may be a decade, it may be 5 years, it may be 15). I certainly don't think all the 11M should get a free pass and definitely not the felons.

Let's do a holistic immigration reform and grandfather "some" of the legacy unauthorized into a PR (e.g. like what Reagan did in the last big immigration reform).

The key here is (1) reform it through the process vs flaunting the laws and (2) make sure that we don't get another 11M in the next 20 years. Reagan's immigration plan was supposed to stop more unauthorized but obviously it didn't. I support Trump's Wall as part of a larger holistic immigration reform. If Trump's Wall will reduce future "unauthorized" (e.g. not a repeat of Reagan's failure) so we don't have to deal with this again in 20 years, I'm all for it.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

The People. It’s written all over our documents.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

America’s greatness is precisely because of acts against governments protesting their (immoral) rule of law. It is not a zero sum situation, protesting and questioning laws is exactly what keeps us from being a totalitarian state.

Which one of these two statements do you hold to? They conflict directly. If the People get to decide what laws are immoral, they do so and change the laws. If on the other hand a subset get to decide what the People have decided is immoral and violate it, that's something else entirely.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, I'm talking about people coming across the border. Not people who've been here for a couple decades. Most of the rhetoric is about building a wall to keep people out. This isn't the 80's and 90's where floods of immigrants were coming across the border. The wall stuff made more sense back then.

Didn't see this before I responded to JPhillips.

Here's what I remember about past immigration reform and my stance on Trump's Wall.

1) Reagan did immigration reform. As part of the reform, it "legalized" some of the unauthorized. It was supposed to stop/reduce future unauthorized
2) It obviously failed in stopping/reducing future unauthorized. The "floods" of unauthorized came back after the 90's
3) I believe we need to do another round of immigration reform through the legislative process. I agree with JPhillips that many of the 11M unauthorized, like Reagan's plan, will need to be legalized
4) I support Trump's wall as part of a bigger immigration reform package to stop future unauthorized so we don't have to deal with this again (!) 20 years from now.

Hence, I support the Wall as part of a holistic immigration reform (e.g. legal and unauthorized immigration, addressing supply and demand etc.)

To your statement, if you believe a Wall would have made sense then, I contend it would also make sense now. History has repeated itself in our immigration reform failure.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The majority of the country (e.g. "the people") is against unauthorized immigration.

That’s my whole point. People say they are against undocumented immigration, yet their actions and actions of our elected officials say otherwise. Which is more truthful- an empty proclamation of belief or demonstrative economic and legislative evidence?

The rich and powerful make the rules to stay rich and powerful. Therefore, whatever mixed situation we have now must be one in which benefits the rich and powerful.

If everyone working in the restaurants, farms, factories and gardens were wearing full burqas, how long would it take for that to end, despite an economic benefit?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Which one of these two statements do you hold to? They conflict directly. If the People get to decide what laws are immoral, they do so and change the laws. If on the other hand a subset get to decide what the People have decided is immoral and violate it, that's something else entirely.

There are very clear historic examples of the people that are being harmed are also the ones who can’t vote and/or hold the least power. So are you asking, why don’t the privileged change the laws?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

That’s my whole point. People say they are against undocumented immigration, yet their actions and actions of our elected officials say otherwise. Which is more truthful- an empty proclamation of belief or demonstrative economic and legislative evidence?

I may be mistaken, but are you saying "people say they are against undocumented immigration, but people's and elected official's actions say otherwise?"

I don't see this. The people as a whole are against unauthorized immigration. I do think the "actions" of the people and elected officials are consistent with this. If you are saying the "actions" are not consistent, please provide some examples.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

The rich and powerful make the rules to stay rich and powerful. Therefore, whatever mixed situation we have now must be one in which benefits the rich and powerful.

I disagree with this. There are truths to what you say but it generalizes too much and its too presumptuous/definite IMO.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

If everyone working in the restaurants, farms, factories and gardens were wearing full burqas, how long would it take for that to end, despite an economic benefit?

I'm having a hard time understanding and relating to your question because I cannot picture everyone wearing a burqa in the US. It just won't happen in the US so I don't see the the "economic benefit".

[G0dzilla]

Originally Posted by BBT

New internet accounts are Russian ops designed to sway U.S. voters, experts say
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...212299529.html

Maybe they are just creating this troll-bots fuzz to cover other typer of activity?

Rich russians are buying property all around the world, and they are especially like US, UK, and Germany -

"The total amount of money sent abroad by Russian nationals in 2017 was $31.3 billion, which exceeds the 2016 figure ($24.8 billion) by 26%(.....) We believe that the volume of capital outflow from Russia for property transactions will continue to rise in 2018, largely through investment purchases. The main investment flow will be aimed at the traditional market leaders: Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. "
Russian foreign property investments grow for the first time in 4 years, exceeding $1 billion – Tranio.Com

Maybe in a few years russians would not need trolls anymore to change the election's results - they would vote themselfes as citizens

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by G0dzilla

Maybe in a few years russians would not need trolls anymore to change the election's results - they would vote themselfes as citizens

There is a significant jump from property owner to voting citizen

[G0dzilla]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

There is a significant jump from property owner to voting citizen

True, but they have some time to develop. You can see from the article - the process is going on for years already. It's like rich families business

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I may be mistaken, but are you saying "people say they are against undocumented immigration, but people's and elected official's actions say otherwise?"

I don't see this. The people as a whole are against unauthorized immigration. I do think the "actions" of the people and elected officials are consistent with this. If you are saying the "actions" are not consistent, please provide some examples.

The vast majority of them have jobs. Someone is offering those jobs to them and looking the other way in verifying their work status. And officials and regulators don't care all that much about it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I may be mistaken, but are you saying "people say they are against undocumented immigration, but people's and elected official's actions say otherwise?"

I don't see this. The people as a whole are against unauthorized immigration. I do think the "actions" of the people and elected officials are consistent with this. If you are saying the "actions" are not consistent, please provide some examples.

You could eliminate most illegal immigration by putting in more stringent means of verifying employment. By punishing businesses who hire illegal immigrants. It would not be difficult to do either.

Elected officials won't do that because it hurts big business. Those are their donors. Sure they throw some red meat to their base about building a wall to keep brown people out. But they know it won't do much and be expensive as hell.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The vast majority of them have jobs. Someone is offering those jobs to them and looking the other way in verifying their work status. And officials and regulators don't care all that much about it.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You could eliminate most illegal immigration by putting in more stringent means of verifying employment. By punishing businesses who hire illegal immigrants. It would not be difficult to do either.

Elected officials won't do that because it hurts big business. Those are their donors. Sure they throw some red meat to their base about building a wall to keep brown people out. But they know it won't do much and be expensive as hell.

The problem isn't hiring companies looking the other way. Its literally how do you know. Ive posted earlier I employ two guys who I suspect aren't fully honest with me. But both have IDs, birth certificates and SS#. I am told these three docs cost about $450 on the market.


I mentioned earlier about my two employees. Brian and Eric. Both have last names that would lead me to doubt they are hispanic. I also must say Brian is amazing looking for 53. I wouldn't put him a day over 30. I question his paperwork. But its all there and it all matches. Not only "should" I not do more, it is illegal for me to further investigate his paperwork. If I choose not to hire him based on my suspicion that he is falsifying his identification I am committing discrimination.


Fix that issue. Fix that the business owner cant exercise judgement without facing potential litigation...or tell me how you think I should handle it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The problem isn't hiring companies looking the other way. Its literally how do you know. Ive posted earlier I employ two guys who I suspect aren't fully honest with me. But both have IDs, birth certificates and SS#. I am told these three docs cost about $450 on the market.

I mentioned earlier about my two employees. Brian and Eric. Both have last names that would lead me to doubt they are hispanic. I also must say Brian is amazing looking for 53. I wouldn't put him a day over 30. I question his paperwork. But its all there and it all matches. Not only "should" I not do more, it is illegal for me to further investigate his paperwork. If I choose not to hire him based on my suspicion that he is falsifying his identification I am committing discrimination.

Fix that issue. Fix that the business owner cant exercise judgement without facing potential litigation...or tell me how you think I should handle it.

You can make e-verify mandatory for businesses of certain sizes. Make e-verify more accurate and easy to use as well.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The vast majority of them have jobs. Someone is offering those jobs to them and looking the other way in verifying their work status. And officials and regulators don't care all that much about it.

Sure, I agree with this statement. His statement referred to "the people" and "elected officials".

Where is "the people" which I equate to regular US Citizens/PR.

You want to blame businesses and local politicians in California, Texas, Florida (the 3 largest by far), maybe add a couple more, and crack down on them, I'm good with it.

But let's not say "the people" and let's acknowledge that its primarily the businesses and elected officials in a few states that are in on this.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You could eliminate most illegal immigration by putting in more stringent means of verifying employment. By punishing businesses who hire illegal immigrants. It would not be difficult to do either.

Elected officials won't do that because it hurts big business. Those are their donors. Sure they throw some red meat to their base about building a wall to keep brown people out. But they know it won't do much and be expensive as hell.

I actually agree that more can be done to catch and penalize employers (e.g. the demand). You and ISiddiqui replied to my response to AENeuman when I questioned his statement on "the people" and "elected officials" being inconsistent on what they say vs do/support re: unauthorized immigration.

You want to blame businesses and elected officials in the states with most unauthorized, I agree with you. Let's keep "the people" and majority of other elected officials out of this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure, I agree with this statement. His statement referred to "the people" and "elected officials".

Where is "the people" which I equate to regular US Citizens/PR.

You want to blame businesses and local politicians in California, Texas, Florida (the 3 largest by far), maybe add a couple more, and crack down on them, I'm good with it.

But let's not say "the people" and let's acknowledge that its primarily the businesses and elected officials in a few states that are in on this.

Are businesses not made up of "the people". They are. And when people realize that harder immigration crackdown hurts businesses and puts their own jobs in jeopardy, they tend to not be happy at that.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are businesses not made up of "the people". They are. And when people realize that harder immigration crackdown hurts businesses and puts their own jobs in jeopardy, they tend to not be happy at that.

In my conversation with AENueman in #10831 and #10837, I defined "The majority of the country (e.g. "the people") is against unauthorized immigration".

He responded by saying "That’s my whole point. People say they are against undocumented immigration, yet their actions and actions of our elected officials say otherwise. Which is more truthful- an empty proclamation of belief or demonstrative economic and legislative evidence?".

So in this context, I took him to mean "the people" = majority of the country because he was responding to me.

Certainly not the business owners in the 3 major states that uses unauthorized people.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The vast majority of them have jobs. Someone is offering those jobs to them and looking the other way in verifying their work status. And officials and regulators don't care all that much about it.

That's because the people that run the economy realize these immigrants are a net positive for the economy and are essential to the long-term health of entitlements.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So in this context, I took him to mean "the people" = majority of the country because he was responding to me.

Certainly not the business owners in the 3 major states that uses unauthorized people.

So does the "majority of the country" take to the streets that business owners are hiring undocumented workers? Do they refuse in shops that hire undocumented? Are they refusing to eat in restaurants where the kitchen staff have undocumented workers (btw, all 50 states have undocumenteds - to only mention 3 major states completely misses the entire point)?

No. Because it's all talk.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's because the people that run the economy realize these immigrants are a net positive for the economy and are essential to the long-term health of entitlements.

If I'm reading your post(s) correctly, you think there is a "cabal" of businesses & federal/state/local government that is organizing and directing all this mess we call illegal immigration to benefit themselves?

There may be some truth in "some" businesses and "some local/state elected officials" doing this but I don't see all/most states and not the federal government involved.

The federal government has been proven ineffective in controlling unauthorized immigration (e.g. 11M or 3.4% of population). Its not because they really want unauthorized immigration, its because they are the federal government and are full of inefficiencies, differing interests, bureaucracy, and have to work with the legislature and how laws are crafted.

For businesses, I suspect High Tech, Big banks, Healthcare industries etc. couldn't give a flip. Its the smaller businesses and maybe Tyson/Perdue and the like.

If the federal/state government was smart, they would encourage highly-skilled immigration. I would plan for, say, 5.5M or 50% of highly skilled legal immigrants out of the current 11M unauthorized immigrants. Proponents of unauthorized immigrants on this board have said its a net-positive. If that's the case, think about how much more net-positive for highly skilled immigrants.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So does the "majority of the country" take to the streets that business owners are hiring undocumented workers? Do they refuse in shops that hire undocumented? Are they refusing to eat in restaurants where the kitchen staff have undocumented workers (btw, all 50 states have undocumenteds - to only mention 3 major states completely misses the entire point)?

No. Because it's all talk.

How would "the people" know if a business owner/restaurant is hiring undocumented workers?

For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye.

For small business, how would one know?

Using my Tyson/Perdue example, I suspect there is probably some unauthorized workers there but, on the other hand, I would also think the government is watching them. There are probably some one-off chicken farms that contract to them that uses unauthorized but is Tyson/Perdue doing this en-masse now?

The majority of people do care about and are against "unauthorized immigration". There is a substantial hard-core % as evident by the Trump supporters.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I'm reading your post(s) correctly, you think there is a "cabal" of businesses & federal/state/local government that is organizing and directing all this mess we call illegal immigration to benefit themselves?

There may be some truth in "some" businesses and "some local/state elected officials" doing this but I don't see all/most states and not the federal government involved.

The federal government has been proven ineffective in controlling unauthorized immigration (e.g. 11M or 3.4% of population). Its not because they really want unauthorized immigration, its because they are the federal government and are full of inefficiencies, differing interests, bureaucracy, and have to work with the legislature and how laws are crafted.

For businesses, I suspect High Tech, Big banks, Healthcare industries etc. couldn't give a flip. Its the smaller businesses and maybe Tyson/Perdue and the like.

If the federal/state government was smart, they would encourage highly-skilled immigration. I would plan for, say, 5.5M or 50% of highly skilled legal immigrants out of the current 11M unauthorized immigrants. Proponents of unauthorized immigrants on this board have said its a net-positive. If that's the case, think about how much more net-positive for highly skilled immigrants.

That's way too broad. I'm saying the status quo serves the interests of those that control the economy and also Congress. If they lobbied for some sort of immigration restrictions it would happen. They don't, though, because the system works for them.

Look how quickly the tax bill passed. When the powerful want something done, it generally gets done.

[RainMaker]

High tech loves students with skills who overstay their visas. In the health care industry, a large number of direct care workers are undocumented. Agriculture and restaurants rely heavily on them too (agriculture industry lobbied to have Florida remove the e-verify requirement from a bill).

Most of this shit is just for show. Red meat to some racists who think they ended up failures because of border crossings. It's why the wall hasn't been funded or other measures are used to curb it. They're a huge part of our economy and businesses who really call the shots in government will never allow it to go away.

[NobodyHere]

The racist card is overplayed.

[JPhillips]

This shouldn't be missed. According the WaPo, Trump has tasked DoD with planning for a withdrawal of some or all of our troops in Germany.

[cuervo72]

Sometimes it's really hard to believe he doesn't have some Russian list of "these are things we'd like you to do."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye.

Industries of unauthorized immigrant workers | Pew Research Center

You really don't think the federal government knows who works in the agricultural industry these days? Or construction? Come on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This shouldn't be missed. According the WaPo, Trump has tasked DoD with planning for a withdrawal of some or all of our troops in Germany.

Really weird how his foreign policy seems to align precisely with what Russia wants us to do.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Industries of unauthorized immigrant workers | Pew Research Center

You really don't think the federal government knows who works in the agricultural industry these days? Or construction? Come on.

You had reference my below so in your answer I'm assuming you are using the Pew research to answer.

For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye.

I see the industries and I get that. Its not as if unauthorized immigrants are here and not doing work.

My question still stands - For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye (vs. their typical in competencies and inefficiencies)

[JPhillips]

The poultry and meat packing industries are highly reliant on undocumented labor. Hotels and restaurants run or franchised by large corporations are also very reliant on undocumented workers.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

High tech loves students with skills who overstay their visas. In the health care industry, a large number of direct care workers are undocumented. Agriculture and restaurants rely heavily on them too (agriculture industry lobbied to have Florida remove the e-verify requirement from a bill).

You really think high-tech loves the liability of hiring students with skills that overstay? I don't think so. No doubt there is not enough high tech students out of college but they wouldn't take the risk (they want to reform H1B, quotas, and they will offshore the work if they have to).

Healthcare wasn't mentioned in your Pew research link. Admittedly it may have fallen under "services" but I doubt there's that much happening. FWIW, I did projects for nursing home companies that own many nursing homes. They are pretty careful, there is alot of liability there. You may be talking about much smaller or independents, but they are not big businesses.

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Most of this shit is just for show. Red meat to some racists who think they ended up failures because of border crossings. It's why the wall hasn't been funded or other measures are used to curb it. They're a huge part of our economy and businesses who really call the shots in government will never allow it to go away.

I still have hopes for the Wall.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The poultry and meat packing industries are highly reliant on undocumented labor. Hotels and restaurants run or franchised by large corporations are also very reliant on undocumented workers.

Can you post some links where this is happening and no action was taken to correct it? I'll repeat what I said to RM

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.

[lungs]

These farms milking 10,000 cows might not be household names but they are large in terms of dollars. And that trickles down to farms smaller than mine. I have a friend who calls his farm ‘White Power Farm’ because he is an oddity in that he has no Latinos working for him.

As mentioned before, meat packing and poultry and I’d also add produce. Maybe it’s a marketing opportunity for somebody to take advantage of? This milk is guaranteed to have been harvested by farms that only employee verified American citizens.

[RainMaker]

Cargill, Del Monte, Tyson to name a few.

The federal government could make e-verify mandatory. They could improve the service by making it easier, cheaper, and more accurate. They could arrest and prosecute business owners for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants (instead of just fining them paltry amounts).

Ask yourself why the federal government doesn't go after the source for why people cross the border?

[RainMaker]

Florida was going to make e-verify mandatory. Agirculture, tourism, and construction industry came in and said nope.

Florida constitution commission rejects immigration verification proposal - Sun Sentinel