Many of the reasons they are now $hitholes are directly attributable to US intervention. c.
True. But if people have to flee El Salvador because of the gangs that originated in the US, aid to fix that country economically and socially is a far better response than a wall.
This American Life had a really good show this week on the topic:
Yes, youʼve heard about the family separations. Youʼve heard about the travel ban. But there are dozens of ways the Trump administration is cracking down on immigration across many agencies, sometimes in ways so small and technical it doesnʼt make headlines. This week, the quiet bureaucratic war thatâs even targeting legal immigrants.
A Tour Of Rawlins Longtime Rawlins city councilor and former mayor DeBari Martinez gives me a tour around town in his truck. He points out all the Latino-owned businesses we pass: a flower shop, a photographer's studio, a steakhouse.
This American Life had a really good show this week on the topic:
Yes, youʼve heard about the family separations. Youʼve heard about the travel ban. But there are dozens of ways the Trump administration is cracking down on immigration across many agencies, sometimes in ways so small and technical it doesnʼt make headlines. This week, the quiet bureaucratic war thatâs even targeting legal immigrants.
People of good conscience are outraged by the forced separation of immigrant parents and children at the U.S border. Comparisons to Japanese internment and even the policies of the Nazis abound.
roximity or physical presence in the same political jurisdiction is all that matters for moral obligations. As long as a specific Haitian is suffering while physically in Haiti, the moral obligation of the United States is nothing, or next to nothing. If that same Haitian manages to arrive on the soil of the United States, the moral obligation to that specific person increases almost infinitely.
Proximity fetishism means that we ignore the suffering of distant others. More strikingly, it also means that we ignore the secondary effects of our government’s policies as long as those effects are felt abroad, out of sight and out of mind.
Why is this point relevant? People object to a policy of family separation because it’s bad for migrant parents and especially the children and this is happening on U.S. soil. But guess what else is bad for migrant parents and children? Enforcing strict immigration restrictions. Yet we can safely ignore these harms because they’re not happening nearby.
Here’s an example. Although it’s hard to find reliable estimates, hundreds and perhaps thousands of children and adolescents have likely died while trying to cross through Central America and Mexico on their way to the United States. Many of them are fleeing violence and gang recruitment in Honduras and other countries and others want to reunite with their parents in the United States. The plight of these children was captured in the book Enrique’s Journey by the journalist Sonia Nazario. From Nazario’s book:
are cold, hungry, and helpless. They are hunted like animals by corrupt police, bandits, and gang members deported from the United States. A University of Houston study found that most are robbed, beaten, or raped, usually several times. Some are killed.
They set out with little or no money. Thousands, shelter workers say, make their way through Mexico clinging to the sides and tops of freight trains. Since the 1990s, Mexico and the United States have tried to thwart them. To evade Mexican police and immigration authorities, the children jump onto and off of the moving train cars. Sometimes they fall, and the wheels tear them apart.
You might argue that there’s a moral difference between the suffering of children in Central America and children separated from their parents by the United States government. After all, the U.S. government is causally responsible for the suffering of migrant children placed in detention and foster care. But a moment’s reflection reveals that the same holds true for migrant children abroad—it’s just that the causal chain is longer and less obvious. If the U.S. government let children from Honduras immigrate legally, they wouldn’t be swimming across the Rio Grande or riding on the tops of freight trains.
I’m glad that people are outraged by the immigration policies of the U.S. government. But I invite these people to consistently apply their outrage to policies that harm children who are out of sight and out of mind.
Please tell when or where Trump stated that he can ignore due process ? I am not aware of him making that claim and I pay pretty close attention to what he says.
The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be â subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.(5)
Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:
Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and âÂÂequitiesâ in the United States. The term âÂÂequitiesâ usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.
This is some serious reading and do follow the various links offered, especially if concerned about due process. This 100 mile zone apparently dates back to 1953.
Hopefully this might clear up some misunderstandings about how due process applies to illegal immigrants and why.
Ultimately all responsibility for immigration and naturalization falls on Congress in Article One of the Constitution. That can be found in Article One, Section 8, Clause 4.
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Congress needs to act, decide something. Trump is just working within the rules he has to follow.
as you note, congress would have to legislate. Trump has no authority.
And I'm not sure, but the protection of scarce "resources" debate seems to be based on a presumption of those "resources" being fixed and finite in number, which is not true. The economic expansion/increased consumption that results from bringing immigrants in to meet labor demand potentially increases the resource pool, since they (arguably) generate government revenue beyond their infrastructure needs as a group, providing a surplus that can be applied to meet increased resource needs.
Obviously, resources vary by location, but earlier in this discussion Kurt did bring up Southern California in particular, which often has severe shortages of water and also seems to attract large numbers of migrants - whether or not they entered the US legally. While the amount of water is not really fixed or finite (well, sort of finite as to the total amount of water within Earth and its atmosphere), it has always been a precious commodity in SoCal. Still, someone's got to tend to and harvest those crops. It's hard to say how much more water is being used because of the presence of migrants though, I suspect a lot of water is being wasted on places like golf courses or unfairly distributed to thirsty industries like almonds, over other crops.
And again, why are we just targeting the immigrants? Look at the wealthy people around Santa Barbara who are using inordinate shares of water for their lawns, and more recently, fire fighting services. Are they contributing enough to justify those expenditures? How about white people who call the cops in LA? Anyone who has ever called the coast guard from Sf Bay? Do we really want to be a strict meritocracy? Why is it only the immigrants, and even a subset of those? Are we asking how many Greeks or Russians there are sucking up water in SoCal?
Yes, I agree with you; it cannot be just recent arrivals "using up" valuable resources, especially since their overall numbers are very small by comparison.. I was just addressing AF's point about scarcity of certain resources being real or presumed. In the case of SoCal water is indeed a scarce resource.
So how do we implement immigration in order to deal with inefficient bureaucracies and bloated public pensions ?
The only thing I'm saying is that we need to control the amount of people who come in so we don't overwhelm our public services and our existing infrastructure. If nothing else, my understanding is that our immigration justice system is overwhelmed with at least a 700,000 case back load. It takes time and planning to expand services. No one wants to undertake this effort (pardon the broad brush). Instead, the usual response especially with the new democratic socialist direction the left is taking, is just open the borders and let them all in. or aka ... anarchy ... break the system to pieces. We currently have 10's of thousands living in tent cities on stateside military bases because there is nowhere to put them. How is this good for anybody ?
There is broad discretion allowed to the AG regarding asylum if that is what you refer to in the bolded. If that is not what you are referring to, then I have no idea. What the current administration is doing is actually strongly enforcing the laws on the books, not circumventing them.
Your first comments are reasonable. I may not agree with your solution, but agree we have an immigration problem that isn't being adequately addressed. Maybe the solution is a more simple admittance process. Once they are admitted, it appears most immigrants are net contributors to society. And we have rules limiting who can immediately access resources. I take issue with your last comment. I agree trump is attempting to strickly enforce laws, but also circumventing them, most recently claiming he can ignore due process, and have immigrants deported.
Please tell when or where Trump stated that he can ignore due process ? I am not aware of him making that claim and I pay pretty close attention to what he says.
If illegals are captured within 100 miles of the border, there are different rules that govern the disposition of their cases and how due process is applied. Here are two articles about this from the ACLU and the Center For Immigration Studies.
The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.(5)
Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:
Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.
This is some serious reading and do follow the various links offered, especially if concerned about due process. This 100 mile zone apparently dates back to 1953.
Hopefully this might clear up some misunderstandings about how due process applies to illegal immigrants and why.
Ultimately all responsibility for immigration and naturalization falls on Congress in Article One of the Constitution. That can be found in Article One, Section 8, Clause 4.
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Congress needs to act, decide something. Trump is just working within the rules he has to follow.
I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:
Taking this a little further. Why are we limiting this to just immigrants? Shouldn't we be looking at all our citizens and determining their 'merit'? Along with your taxes, you should submit your list of what you have done for them lately. Those falling short would get a curt (Kurt?) note, and a 12 month window to improve their performance. Fall short again and your are on probation, three strikes and you are a Mexican (or other country of not ours origin). I'd be willing to bet that if we put it on a pure merit system a lot of those complaining about the immigrants would soon find themselves on a boat.
If this all feels a little too hunger games for us, then maybe we should be thinking about why it is cool to make the first cut in the game based on the geographic border where you first hit the ground.
I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:
Taking this a little further. Why are we limiting this to just immigrants? Shouldn't we be looking at all our citizens and determining their 'merit'? Along with your taxes, you should submit your list of what you have done for them lately. Those falling short would get a curt (Kurt?) note, and a 12 month window to improve their performance. Fall short again and your are on probation, three strikes and you are a Mexican (or other country of not ours origin). I'd be willing to bet that if we put it on a pure merit system a lot of those complaining about the immigrants would soon find themselves on a boat.
If this all feels a little too hunger games for us, then maybe we should be thinking about why it is cool to make the first cut in the game based on the geographic border where you first hit the ground.
We need a wall along our border with Canada!
I'm hoping to get shipped of to Victoria due to convenient proximity when I refuse to stack bricks in Blaine.
And I'm not sure, but the protection of scarce "resources" debate seems to be based on a presumption of those "resources" being fixed and finite in number, which is not true. The economic expansion/increased consumption that results from bringing immigrants in to meet labor demand potentially increases the resource pool, since they (arguably) generate government revenue beyond their infrastructure needs as a group, providing a surplus that can be applied to meet increased resource needs.
Obviously, resources vary by location, but earlier in this discussion Kurt did bring up Southern California in particular, which often has severe shortages of water and also seems to attract large numbers of migrants - whether or not they entered the US legally. While the amount of water is not really fixed or finite (well, sort of finite as to the total amount of water within Earth and its atmosphere), it has always been a precious commodity in SoCal. Still, someone's got to tend to and harvest those crops. It's hard to say how much more water is being used because of the presence of migrants though, I suspect a lot of water is being wasted on places like golf courses or unfairly distributed to thirsty industries like almonds, over other crops.
And again, why are we just targeting the immigrants? Look at the wealthy people around Santa Barbara who are using inordinate shares of water for their lawns, and more recently, fire fighting services. Are they contributing enough to justify those expenditures? How about white people who call the cops in LA? Anyone who has ever called the coast guard from Sf Bay? Do we really want to be a strict meritocracy? Why is it only the immigrants, and even a subset of those? Are we asking how many Greeks or Russians there are sucking up water in SoCal?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Aug 16, 2018 - 2:04pm
islander wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
steeler wrote:
I wonder why a person with more "merit" ...
I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:
Taking this a little further. Why are we limiting this to just immigrants? Shouldn't we be looking at all our citizens and determining their 'merit'? Along with your taxes, you should submit your list of what you have done for them lately. Those falling short would get a curt (Kurt?) note, and a 12 month window to improve their performance. Fall short again and your are on probation, three strikes and you are a Mexican (or other country of not ours origin). I'd be willing to bet that if we put it on a pure merit system a lot of those complaining about the immigrants would soon find themselves on a boat.
If this all feels a little too hunger games for us, then maybe we should be thinking about why it is cool to make the first cut in the game based on the geographic border where you first hit the ground.
We need a wall along our border with Canada! (Just because Neil Young turned out productive does not mean he should have been able to sneak across that border repeatedly and take up residence in southern California back in the day!)
I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:
Taking this a little further. Why are we limiting this to just immigrants? Shouldn't we be looking at all our citizens and determining their 'merit'? Along with your taxes, you should submit your list of what you have done for them lately. Those falling short would get a curt (Kurt?) note, and a 12 month window to improve their performance. Fall short again and your are on probation, three strikes and you are a Mexican (or other country of not ours origin). I'd be willing to bet that if we put it on a pure merit system a lot of those complaining about the immigrants would soon find themselves on a boat.
If this all feels a little too hunger games for us, then maybe we should be thinking about why it is cool to make the first cut in the game based on the geographic border where you first hit the ground.
I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:
if i'm not mistaken there is a laundry list of countries that screen potential citizens by assets
I'm glad you put that word in quotes, because haven't we all hired employees who turned out to be terrible people? I have no idea why a system that attempts to gauge a potential immigrant's "merit" would yield better people than a job search, or a random lottery. My gut tells me that being welcomed in because of some state-certified superior merit would only lead to people thinking they were God's gift to America, whereas someone who got a lottery green card might be more inspired to really take advantage of it. :shrug:
That's a great post! Going through a hiring process right now, it rings all too true.
And I'm not sure, but the protection of scarce "resources" debate seems to be based on a presumption of those "resources" being fixed and finite in number, which is not true. The economic expansion/increased consumption that results from bringing immigrants in to meet labor demand potentially increases the resource pool, since they (arguably) generate government revenue beyond their infrastructure needs as a group, providing a surplus that can be applied to meet increased resource needs.
Obviously, resources vary by location, but earlier in this discussion Kurt did bring up Southern California in particular, which often has severe shortages of water and also seems to attract large numbers of migrants - whether or not they entered the US legally. While the amount of water is not really fixed or finite (well, sort of finite as to the total amount of water within Earth and its atmosphere), it has always been a precious commodity in SoCal. Still, someone's got to tend to and harvest those crops. It's hard to say how much more water is being used because of the presence of migrants though, I suspect a lot of water is being wasted on places like golf courses or unfairly distributed to thirsty industries like almonds, over other crops.
