Biden's Immigration Reform

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not an attack, just a suggestion.

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

Should tell you something.

Appreciate you clarifying it's not an attack.

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

[Lathum]

bringing up mental health, sick burn dude.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

bringing up mental health, sick burn dude.

Consider it a passive aggressive attack in kind.

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

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

[Flasch186]

Isn’t this why the other thread exists though?

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

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

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Isn’t this why the other thread exists though?

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

I created the other thread titled

Thread to hold extended & contentious Discussions

Post #1 says

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

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

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

[Flasch186]

I haven’t

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

Smh

GD

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I haven’t

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

Smh

GD

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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

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

So, to reiterate and be very clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question to you -

I contend the below. Do you agree or disagree?

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

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

So, to reiterate and be very clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My question to you -

I contend the below. Do you agree or disagree?

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Looks like the Asians are losing out here).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

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

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

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

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

For the record, I consider sarcasm as an attack.

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola-

I vote yae

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

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Looks like the Asians are losing out here)

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

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

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

And here are the approved naturalizations in FY2023.

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

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

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

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