Lazy8 wrote: 
(i've always been interested in what jerry taylor has to say and i'm happy to see youngsters like dan bier getting some action too)

yeah that's good stuff

and needs to be introduced into conversations for sure

i had posted similar stuff back in august and i encourage people to read it 

miamizsun wrote: 
an update of sorts on the politics of moving:

August 3, 2016

Campaign Spotlights how Immigrants Contribute to State Economies

---

by Kristie De Peña

Today marks the beginning of the Reason for Reform campaign, part of the Partnership for a New American Economy’s (NAE) advocacy efforts in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. The campaign is bringing together a coalition of different people and groups—from community leaders to businesses—to work together in every state across the country to promote much-needed reform.

Evidenced in state-by-state reports, the campaign demonstrates how important immigrants are to the economy of every state. Each report emphasizes the many different, and often overlooked, ways that immigrants are vital in their contributions. NAE released 51 reports—one for each state and the District of Columbia—detailing the size and character of those contributions.

The reports shed light on the power of the entrepreneurial energy immigrants bring to each state. The immigrant debate often overlooks that immigrants are big job creators. In fact, immigrants are more likely to start new businesses than natives.

In Washington, D.C. alone, the report finds that while 14% of the population is born abroad, 20% of D.C.’s entrepreneurs are immigrants. Job growth in D.C. is therefore driven disproportionately by its immigrant population.

Businesses owned by immigrants, the report finds, generate over $120 million in income annually. Comprehensive immigration reform should include making it easier for people to move here to start businesses or for people stay and create businesses in order to super-charge economic activity.

 

and this:

 

 

August 11, 2016

State Lawmakers Back Private Refugee Resettlement

---

by Matthew La Corte

Earlier today, 22 Maryland state lawmakers urged Secretary of State John Kerry to launch a privately funded refugee program that would allow the American people to contribute towards increasing resettlement totals. The Niskanen Center has been leading the effort to launch such a program since last year, and applauds the Maryland lawmakers action in this crucial time.

The letter comes in the midst of an unprecedented global refugee crisis, which has left more than 21 million people in need of assistance. The United States is resettling a mere 85,000 refugees this year, but private sector contributions can provide the funding to substantially increase that number, while maintaining the rigorous security measures already in place for refugee admissions.

The U.S. must put all options on the table in order to aggressively respond to the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. Providing the American people with a tangible outlet to support refugee resettlement helps bolster efforts to provide refuge to those fleeing war and persecution.

The letter proclaims that “American citizens, charities, foundations, faith groups, universities, and businesses should have the right to contribute towards increased refugee resettlement.” Under current law, no amount of contributions can go towards increased the refugee ceiling determined by the president. The push to reverse that policy is gaining momentum.

The legislators point to several statements and resolutions from the local level that “show that there is an appetite for increased engagement in the resettlement process.” The Maryland lawmakers are confident that the current system is unnecessarily putting “a ceiling on American generosity.”

A modest proposal. Probably not politically feasible at the moment, but worth telling your congresscritter about.

 Skydog wrote: 
if we could build a wall out ignorance and stupidity it would be high enough to block the sun

or whatever

 miamizsun wrote: 
whoa now boy, you sound like you are bucking for a job on the chaingang that's gonna build that dang gum wall
(I can hear the new age spitituals now, hmm, ah yes) 

aside from the unbelievably bad belief systems shared by both/all...

the united states devotes a shyte ton of precious resources to a very violent, aggressive foreign policy

then in its infinite wisdom devotes another shyte ton of precious resources to defend against the retaliation/blowback

the real beauty and wisdom is that they're borrowing the money created practically out of thin f'n air and putting future generations on the hook to pay for it

and then, wait for it, the masses willingly vote to keep it going

because = what's this got to do with immigration?

right?

 kurtster wrote: 
A bit more nuance on at least one point:

The UFW during Chavez's tenure was committed to restricting immigration. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, cofounder and president of the UFW, fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. Their opposition stemmed from their belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the migrant workers. Since the Bracero Program ensured a constant supply of cheap immigrant labor for growers, immigrants could not protest any infringement of their rights, lest they be fired and replaced. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964. In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring illegal immigrants. Later during the 1980s, while Chavez was still working alongside Huerta, he was key in getting the amnesty provisions into the 1986 federal immigration act.

On a few occasions, concerns that illegal immigrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers (as well as those who refused to unionize) to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts. During one such event, in which Chavez was not involved, some UFW members, under the guidance of Chavez's cousin Manuel, physically attacked the strikebreakers after peaceful attempts to persuade them not to cross the border failed.

Cui bono? Cui plagalis?

 kurtster wrote: 

It's Friday night and I've already commented about this subject in the "Trump" subject thread, so I'm going to try to be brief (deafening cheers ensue). 

What happened to your family member is horrifying, kurtster. If that had happened to someone in my family, I would struggle to think and talk about illegal immigration dispassionately. Even if you didn't have your loved one's experiencing weighing on your thoughts, you'd still have the right to take a strong position on illegal immigration. However...

As I posted in the "Trump" thread, on a national economic level it doesn't appear that illegal immigration has had a significant impact on native workers' wages. There doesn't seem to even been a negative impact on native workers' wages in cities along the US-Mexico border.

"So now we are finally getting around to enforcing the laws on the books that have been there for decades.  Someone is going to have to be first."

Obama was not the first to enforce immigration laws, but Obama did deport 2.4-2.5 million illegal immigrants while President. Even Trump acknowledged that. According to the ABC News article (first link) of August 2016, that number range doesn't include Obama's final year in office because numbers for that year weren't available at time of publication. 
Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President

In fiscal year 2015, 91 percent of people removed from inside the U.S. were previously convicted of a crime.

The administration made the first priority "threats to national security, border security, and public safety." That includes gang members, convicted felons or charged with "aggravated felony" and anyone apprehended at the border trying to enter the country illegally.

In 2015, 81 percent, or 113,385, of the removals were the priority one removals.

Priority two includes "misdemeanants and new immigration violators."

That includes "aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic" violations, as well as those convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglary, DUIs or drug trafficking.
 

Trump right on Obama's deportation numbers, wrong about nobody talking about it

As for the Ellis Island Awards, I think you should read the Huffington Post piece on it to get a fuller picture of what was going on. You neglect to mention by the way that in the picture you posted was Anita Bryant, the spokeswoman for Florida Citrus Commission who became notorious for taking anti-gay positions: 



No, Donald Trump Did Not Win A Medal From The NAACP

The real story is much, much weirder.
...

Here’s the real story. In 1986, as preparations began for the centennial of the Statue of Liberty, a civic committee selected a group of 12 naturalized citizens to receive “medals of liberty” from President Ronald Reagan.

...

There was an immediate outcry. Fugazy, then Trump’s real estate broker and head of the Coalition of Italo-American Associations, was angry that there were no native-born citizens among the 12 liberty medal winners (which was inevitable, since the award was for naturalized citizens) and that the list excluded certain ethnicities, “like the Irish, Italians and Poles.” 

 

...
 ...

 

 islander wrote:  
Well the xanax I took a while ago is kicking in so I hope this comes out nice.

I am not late to this immigration party like so many on both sides.  I've been posting on this here since before Obama got elected.  I've been paying attention and living it since the 60's, having been born and raised in a border state and having lived 70 miles from the Mexican border in the 60's.  On weekly trips south looking for waves, we would always see the border patrol parked on 101 (before it was I-5) at the Basoline Road exit that was the north gate to Camp Pendleton right on the Orange County / San Diego County lines looking to intercept illegals that had somehow made it that far north.  There were road signs warning of illegals running across the freeway such as this one ...


Yes, this is a real sign as anyone who has lived in Southern California since the 60's can attest to, and I bet many from there also know exactly what sign and exit I am talking about having seen what I just described.  I even remember when it first appeared.  Back then, the problem with it was that it was just plain illegal to sneak into the country and that was a good enough reason to catch these trespassers and give them the boot.  Do you know that Cesar Chavez (a Mexican-American) who organized the United Farm Workers Union back then was steadfastly against illegal immigration ? The guys he represented, mostly Mexicans here legally or already citizens, were doing the farm work because they wanted to and were beginning to get a decent wage, and the illegals were a direct threat to their employment.  The illegals have also done great harm to Americans who worked in the building trades by undercutting their prices and forcing them out of business. These were really good paying jobs.  Have family members who have dealt with this problem.  

Safety, huh ...  Right, some phony excuse to be racist.  Again, I'm not late to this party.  I have an immediate family member who was raped by an illegal Mexican in the 90's.  Not only was she sodomized, the case never making it to trial because the guy just vanished, she had to face HIV testing for many months afterwards.  Then she got the wrong end of a hit skip by illegals in a stolen car on the way to jury duty.  The cops were right there and had run the plate and just said we know its stolen and being driven by illegals so we aren't going after them cuz nothing would happen to them even if they caught them.  So I have a personal interest here and these are besides my own experiences.  Does this allow me to be upset without needing to be bigoted or racist ?  I am hardly the only one with these kinds of experiences.  Y'all pretend that this stuff doesn't happen to real people.  They're just made up stories.  Kate Steinle didn't really die.

Costs no one thinks about, how about much higher car insurance rates just because you live in an area where illegals are in high concentrations ?  Do you need to be bigoted or racist to resent that, too ?  What about immigration laws are bigoted or racist to begin with ?  Wouldn't they have been overturned in court long ago if that were the case ?  Wanting immigration laws to be enforced makes you racist ?  What happened to it just being the law that everyone knew and that was good enough ?

So now we are finally getting around to enforcing the laws on the books that have been there for decades.  Someone is going to have to be first.  Sad as it is, why should only American citizens be prosecuted and suffer consequences for identification fraud as in this case ?  Does that law have different applications because someone is here illegally versus an American citizen.  Due to the insistence of one political party, we have extended Constitutional rights to anyone who is simply here, even illegally.  Why should not the rest of the law apply to them as well ?  I know, that would be racist.

You don't know what I have done and seen in my travels around this country in the 64 years of my life.  I've mentioned some things, yes, but those are only the things that I could talk about in a public forum.  I'm also no stranger to manual labor having dug more than a few ditches in my younger years along with playing with 16 foot railroad cross ties and 3 foot long chainsaws, pouring concrete, laying sod, paving roads.  Things that illegals would also be happy to do and end up doing now instead of Americans who would.

You want the laws changed, I want the laws changed.  But so far the only thing that has happened is that the laws have been ignored, with the hopes that the laws do not get changed by the establishment, who has the most to lose.  You and other's with similar stances are aiding and abetting the establishment.  We will now change the laws as we see them enforced.  We will now have the conversation that everyone has avoided for too long.  We will now define the problem and fix it.  Enforcing the laws is the only way that will make this conversation happen.  And we would not be having this conversation if Trump was not POTUS.

While making someone eat their oatmeal or vegetables may be mean, it doesn't make you racist or bigoted.

Oh, and just for shits and giggles ...

 haresfur wrote:
Don't get me started.

 haresfur wrote: 
Ayup. Including introducing drugs into one's own body. One's body is not one's own in the US of A. 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Seems like the USA felonizes everything. Scope creep.

 kurtster wrote: 
Yes, that one. As Lazy8 mentioned, she contributed to the SS system with no hope of benefiting from it. She was doing so just to have an income to support her family.  She was here seeking opportunity. She came when she was 14 with limited resources and probably facing some unpleasant realities in her homeland. You want to penalize her for not following your rules, but you fail to recognize the barrier that puts up, and don't even know why you are putting it there beyond some vague nationalistic tripe, or obscure lie about safety.  You think you've had tough times selling coffee from a truck in a rough part of town, I bet you haven't seen half the crap most of these immigrants face daily. Then they get through and work hard to get by under the fear of being sent back to it at any moment.  And you wonder why I think your a bigot/racist. 

kurtster wrote:
Yeah, that one. She was working with a fake ID, probably upgraded to a felony because she was using someone else's (valid) SSN.

Which means she was paying someone else's taxes. It also means she would get no Social Security benefits because she got no credit for paying those taxes.

Welcome to immigration law.

 kurtster wrote: 
Voluntary departure order, not removal order.


 

 islander wrote: 
Which of her crimes is minor ?  This one ?

 "Ms. Garcia, who has a prior felony conviction in Arizona for criminal impersonation, was the subject of a court-issued removal order that became final in July 2013," Pitts O'Keefe said.

 Is what it is.  You wish to sweep everything under the rug ?  

Arizona mother deported to Mexico in immigration action

 sirdroseph wrote: 
You had me until the end ... 

Justin Amash

Like President Obama's executive actions on immigration, President Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system. It's not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.

January 25, 2017

Four Reasons Why President Trump Is Wrong to Ban Refugees

This week, President Donald Trump is expected to sign executive orders broadly banning refugee resettlement, and permanently targeting refugees from seven countries, including Syria.

These executive orders threaten our national security, undermine the extensive vetting procedures we have in place to screen refugees, and discount the successes and contributions of refugees in America. They negate America’s fundamental political and cultural values, and will have devastating impacts worldwide.

 aflanigan wrote:
Since all the East German judges retired there's just no pool to draw from.