Ibrahim is on a roll... My first comment was that I find comments like the one below amazing.
Why is it that the folks who want higher incomes for low end workers, more jobs for minority workers, more social services / benefits for low income folks, etc seem to be the most vocal "Do Not Deport" illegal workers voices?
Apparently there are ~90,000 illegal workers in MN. Now that is a lot of job openings if they were all returned home. Wouldn't this be good for all of the legal low end workers and those who are unemployed?
"Tripiciano said that if police officers were forced to round up everyone who’s here without authorization, there will be numerous businesses that would have to close down. “You don’t want to put the companies that employ their community members at risk by taking away a large chunk of their workforce,” she added. “That just doesn’t make any sense.”
Personally I think police should cooperate with ICE. Thoughts?
Why is it that the folks who want higher incomes for low end workers, more jobs for minority workers, more social services / benefits for low income folks, etc seem to be the most vocal "Do Not Deport" illegal workers voices?
Apparently there are ~90,000 illegal workers in MN. Now that is a lot of job openings if they were all returned home. Wouldn't this be good for all of the legal low end workers and those who are unemployed?
"Tripiciano said that if police officers were forced to round up everyone who’s here without authorization, there will be numerous businesses that would have to close down. “You don’t want to put the companies that employ their community members at risk by taking away a large chunk of their workforce,” she added. “That just doesn’t make any sense.”
Personally I think police should cooperate with ICE. Thoughts?
53 comments:
"Personally I think police should cooperate with ICE."
They do. What they don't do is ICE's job for them. It's much more in the city of Minneapolis's interests to ensure that victims and witnesses of crime be allowed to come forward than to take on an unfunded mandate from the feds to be the front line in enforcing immigration law.
I am pretty sure the Minneapolis police are FAR FAR from the front line... That is unless we are looking for Canadian border jumpers. :-)
And just the idea that people are concerned about illegals as witnesses shows how far out of whack the situation is... They are not supposed to be here to commit or witness crimes in the first place. (or to take jobs from legal minority residents)
Well I hope Trump follows through on cutting Federal subsidies for cities who refuse to help enforce the US laws.
I remember when the Feds used highway funds to pressure the States to lower speed limits, raise the drinking age, etc. This seems much more important our low income legal residents than either of them.
Why is it that the folks who want higher incomes for low end workers, more jobs for minority workers, more social services / benefits for low income folks, etc seem to be the most vocal "Do Not Deport" illegal workers voices?
Probably because they are the most concerned about vulnerable workers.
--Hiram
The issue of whether or not Minneapolis is a sanctuary city is a separate one from whether or not illegal immigrants get deported. The federal government can apply more resources to immigration enforcement and deportation whenever it wants to. The question police departments have to deal with is do they want to allow criminals to prey on illegal immigrants (and potentially others).
Hiram,
If they are deported to their home country, they will no longer be "vulnerable workers" in MN.
Sean,
So we tax payers should spend more at the Federal level when we are already paying law enforcement personnel at the local and state levels?
And there will be no one preying on illegal aliens in Minneapolis if they are not here...
Both,
Why again are you supportive of harboring people who are in the country illegally at the expense of our minority legal citizens?
If they are deported to their home country, they will no longer be "vulnerable workers" in MN.
But that answer would not have been responsive to the question you asked.
--Hiram
Bear in mind that being here illegally, unlike jay walking and parking next to a fire hydrant, is not a crime.
--Hiram
I would like to comment on that "lots of businesses would have to close down" fib. A few years ago, ICE raided a packing plant in SE MN, and put several hundred illegals on a bus (several buses, we assume). The next day, TWICE as many American workers showed up to apply for those jobs. The laws should be enforced and those who break them have no right to complain about it. Granted there may be more "humanity affirming" ways to do it, but right now the law is the law.
"So we tax payers should spend more at the Federal level when we are already paying law enforcement personnel at the local and state levels?"
Immigration and border control have always been federal responsibilities. Shall we turn over the the borer crossing to the Baudette PD?
Personally I would expect all of the US Law Enforcement groups to work together for the common good.
Personally I would expect all of the US Law Enforcement groups to work together for the common good.
Hassling people for doing something or nothing really, isn't seen by many people as a common good. Republicans want stuff, they just don't want to pay for the stuff they want. In this case, they want the immigration laws enforced, they just want some other dude to pay for it. Trump famously wants Mexico to pay for policies he wants to impose. Nothing is a characteristic of the problem approach to policy as that.
--Hiram
This part of the debate is illogical. All that is being asked of local law enforcement is to inform the federal agency that they have detained an illegal. If they instead turn that person loose, the federal agency then has to spend additional money tracking them down again. Why spend twice for something that you should only need do once?
And everybody laughs at "Mexico will pay for the wall," yet Trump months ago published his approach to making that happen, and there is nothing Mexico can do to stop him from doing it.
All that is being asked of local law enforcement is to inform the federal agency that they have detained an illegal.
Cops have serious matters to deal with. It just doesn't make sense, it isn't logical, to ask them to spend time and resources that don't protect and serve the community and aren't crimes.
--Hiram
I think the parents of Kate Steinle might disagree that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes. The amount of time and resource spent to make one phone call, compared with all the time and resources that go in to the original arrest, is trivial, likely prevents additional crimes, and at minimum pulls an existing criminal off the street.
And if were to ignore those silly rapes, murders, drug sales, etc. We still have a large group of people who are taking jobs that could provide employment for those unfortunate young adults who the Public School system and their Parents Left Behind.
I think the parents of Kate Steinle might disagree that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes.
They might disagree but they would be wrong. Being present in the country illegally is not a crime.
It was asked earlier, why people who are concerned about low wages are also concerned about illegal aliens. I thought the question was surprising because both issues are about the exploitation of vulnerable populations, people who can't speak effectively for themselves.
--Hiram
I hear that old dodge all the time from liberals, that illegal immigration is not a crime. Look here:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html
Illegal entry IS a crime, and illegal presence is subject to civil penalty IF you did NOT illegally enter. If you legally entered but overstayed your visa (apparently about half of the current "illegal" population, that is a federal crime.
In any event, illegal presence is usually sustained by one or more additional criminal acts, such as misrepresentation, falsifying documents, fraud, theft of government services, tax evasion, driving without a license, and perjury. And that is just for people "keeping their nose clean." Those who came here with criminal intent, obviously, are criminals before, during and after, and local police OUGHT to be turning over anybody like that to the federal agencies, to "protect and serve" their own citizens. Seems to me that if the wacko politicians in these cities want to offer "sanctuary" to these criminals, police ought to drop some off in THEIR neighborhoods.
Hiram,
Yes we have discussed the criminality before. Whether it is a criminal or civil violation of law, both will put you in front of a judge and may have severe consequences.
You are correct that both groups will earn less because the illegal workers are present. I don't think that is exploitation , just supply and demand...
The big question is will all the "legal low income citizens" be willing to take the vacated jobs even if they pay more after the illegal workers are gone? Do these folks really want to work?
I thought I already answered that one: The hundreds deported from that SE MN packing plant had twice as many Americans applying for those jobs the next day. Now if we had a welfare system that wasn't a substitute for work, and an education system that turned out literate citizens prepared for work, we would have even more. A few jobs, like migrant farm workers, could still go to legal immigrants, because Americans are just not equipped for it.
Sure, it may be a crime to enter the country illegally, but simply being here is not evidence that an individual has entered the country illegally. A great many people here illegally, entered the country legally.
--Hiram
Missing the point. Whether you came legally or illegally, "unlawful presence" is a violation of the law and thus "criminal" by the common definition. It also tends to create ancillary crimes as mentioned, and is certainly a "tort" in the common law, since you are undoubtedly taking something-- a job, an apartment, etc.-- that you are not legally allowed to take.
Jerry,
Sorry, I question the validity of the 200 deported and twice as many applying. Got a source? Or was it during the heart of the recession? Personally I think wages will need to go up significantly to get many of the unemployed and underemployed to apply at a slaughter house. I think they are likely too soft too want to do real work.
The road construction crews who paid well had a hard time getting youngsters to enter the field because it is too hard... A young life full of video games and looking down on blue collar workers makes it hard for them to adjust.
Actually it is not a crime... It is a civil law violation... Not sure what the difference is? Maybe it is like parking in a no parking zone.
I believe the article appeared in both the Austin paper and even the Star Tribune. It was at least 5 years ago and yes, my memory is still pretty good. Believe it or not. I'll agree it may not appear that today's "snowflakes" are willing to work, but when faced with no alternatives they may come around. And in the meantime we have all of those "hidden" Americans who voted for Trump, ready and eager to pull their own weight. In any event, as Obama would say, "it's the right thing to do."
OK, we are quibbling over definitions. To me, something against the law is at least illegal and therefore could be loosely termed "criminal." Point being that to whatever degree it is criminal/illegal it needs to be prosecuted, not officially "sheltered" in some "sanctuary city."
Agreed. Ignoring either type of illegal activity is not good.
What surprised me was to hear (unconfirmed) that half of "illegal presence" are visa overstays. Seems like that part of our system would be easy to "fix." The "wall" would take care of a lot of the rest, along with universal e-Verify and penalizing sanctuary cities. Massive effort of rounding people up wouldn't be necessary.
I am guessing that the "pardon them" crew would be fine just letting those Visa folks stay...
Come for school, job, tourism, etc, stay forever...
Who needs a legal immigration process when everyone who can get here can stay without legal penalty?
I mean who cares if those law abiding potential immigrants are lined around the world... Just let others cut in front of them.
Maybe it is my "fair" value... I get very angry when people cut in line. Maybe the pro-pardon folks don't mind line cutters?
Whether you came legally or illegally, "unlawful presence" is a violation of the law and thus "criminal" by the common definition
Lots and lots of things are illegal but not criminal. It's illegal to break a contract, but you can't go to jail for it. Some people insist on introducing the adjective "illegal" into the discussion of immigration hoping to imply that it's criminal. The implication is simply incorrect, and I believe, an attempt to mislead.
--Hiram
Who needs a legal immigration process when everyone who can get here can stay without legal penalty?
The reality is that the political position of illegal aliens will grow stronger as time passes as they have children and grandchildren who are born here, who are therefore full citizens, who will not view kindly politicians who want to send mom and dad, grandma and grandpa back to the old country. The inevitable political reality is that the deal anti immigration forces can get will only get worse as their bargaining position worsens. I find it amazing that people don't see that.
--Hiram
One would assume you are correct, but exit polls suggest that over half of Hispanics support Trump's immigration policy in some form. Those who came legally don't want to compete with those who didn't, and why should they?
And I don't care to split hairs over "illegal" versus "criminal." The penalty for any illegal presence should be deportation, with return being a felony.
Hiram,
Well if we can actually shut down the illegal border crossings and visa overstays. (actually enforce the laws)
The rest will be taken care of over time. Everyone gets old and passes away, even illegal aliens. And if Trump follows through on aggressively deporting law breaking illegals and enforcing E Verify during the next 4 years, we will have a good start at reducing the number of illegals in the country.
Then time will take care of the rest...
Jerry,
I always find it amusing that Liberals automatically think that Hispanics support illegal immigration. It is like saying that the people who made it to the Titanic's life boats would be excited to invite all those still in the water to join them... Even if it made their situation more precarious.
The reality of course is that many legal immigrants waited in line, and are very unhappy that others would be allowed to cut in line...
NPR confirms that 45% of illegals are visa overstays. I really don't know what they are doing here, but I assume E-verify would quickly find most of them and their illegal status would be quickly discovered. And I doubt few would defend their continued presence, since they agreed in advance to leave.
We also happen to know, through SSA, where about 90% of the remaining illegals are. Trump's proposal for "voluntary removal" would work, if those folks were simply notified that they had, say, a year to go back where they came from and (maybe) re-enter legally. The other 10% may be criminals (as evidenced by their not registering their employment with SSA) and already are slated for removal under Trump's (and supposedly Obama's) policy of starting with criminal illegal aliens.
The rest will be taken care of over time
But over time, children of illegals will take political power, and will be able to pass laws in their favor. Time is not on the side of those who oppose illegal immigration.
--Hiram
So, it behooves Trump to remove those illegals from any possibility of political power NOW, and, to quote Obama, "it's the right thing to do."
From a practical perspective, the 11 million or so illegals who are here aren't going home. Yes, you can focus on the criminals and send them home, but that's a relatively small portion. In California, for instance, the percentage of folks in jail who are illegals is smaller than what we believe their incidence in the population as a whole is.
So we can either face reality or keep talking nonsense. The bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate many moons ago now was an apt starting point.
Hiram,
Your logic seems flawed to me... If there are only 11 million working illegals in the US and the population of the US is ~300 million... And if we stop more from coming or over staying... At some point the illegal population will shrink, as will their familial supporters...
The bigger challenges are the Liberals who seem happy to flood the US "Lifeboat" with ever more low knowledge low skill workers, even though their typical voters suffer because of it. And the Conservatives who want the low cost labor pool.
Sean, I disagree. If you had said "11 million or so illegals cannot be SENT home," I would have agreed with you. But a couple states have passed laws banning the employment of illegals and a sizable majority of them apparently up and "self deported." It could be easily done nationwide, with the only question being how gradual to make the change and what facilities might be made for allowing some of them to return, say as "guest workers."
Also, some estimates of the "criminal element" among illegal residents are as high as 25%, not surprising considering that roughly 90% of them have committed at least one additional crime in addition to unlawful presence. Any amnesty for these crimes, such as was in the "comprehensive reform," is a terrible idea. It didn't work before and it won't work again.
Here it is: Build the wall/fence/whatever. Put in place strict visa tracking to prevent overstays. End sanctuary cities, deport criminal aliens as quickly as they can be found. Establish national E-verify requirements with strict penalties for NEW illegal hires. Use SSA "no-match lists" to notify working illegal aliens they are on "notice of pending deportation" lists. Establish guest worker program and "wink wink amnesty" for those who enter with an employer sponsor (and maybe a few other requirements).
Your logic seems flawed to me... If there are only 11 million working illegals in the US and the population of the US is ~300 million... And if we stop more from coming or over staying... At some point the illegal population will shrink, as will their familial supporters...
That's a different logic. And the flaw in Republican logic is generally that they advocate policies they are unwilling to pay for.
--Hiram
What "pay for"? Stopping them from coming in is a proper function of government, and must be paid for, sure. But allowing them to come in or to stay has a price, too. And if we simply prosecute people who hire them and there are no jobs, they all go home and it costs us next to nothing.
What "pay for"?
Enforcing immigration policy is going to be very expensive. Republicans love policy initiatives but they hate paying for them. Trump is never more Republican when he says he wants to build a wall which someone else is going to pay for.
--Hiram
Seems to me those responsible for a problem should pay to remedy it. And if you think enforcement is expensive, consider the cost of NOT enforcing the laws.
Seems to me those responsible for a problem should pay to remedy it.
And that is one of the rationalizations Republicans use. Where is the money going to come from to pay for their immigration? To the Republican mind, it is completely logical to ask the impoverished illegal immigrant to pay for it. And maybe that isn't just the logical, but also the right choice. But do you notice the one big flaw in the otherwise impeccable logic? That impoverished illegal aliens don't have the money to pay for America's immigration policy?
--Hiram
Hiram,
Apparently the Mexican Government may not pay for it, but it sounds like there are several ways to make Mexican citizens, US Illegals and Mexican Businesses pay for it...
And yes they do have money... They are working in the USA taking the money that our poor legal citizens could be earning. Well that is if our poor legal citizens really want to work... :-)
Or, these illegal immigrants could "pay for it" by going back where they came from. A million dollars saved is as good as a million dollars of tax money not spent.
Okay I'll bite... What money will we save?
I think their leaving will cost us much more in higher wages, automation, etc. That is why it would be good for our poor.
You could impose various tariffs on Mexico and use the money to pay for immigration enforcement. But that assumes that the tariffs will actually generate income. Really, the point of the tariffs is to punish trade and subsidize domestic industry. That being the case, they won't actually raise much money.
Generally speaking, Donald favors a protectionist trade policy. Such a policy isn't without it's advantages but it has it's problems as well. Part of the problem is that protectionism has been in disfavor with economists for so long that we don't really have a very complete understanding of how it works, particularly in this globalized, internet wired world. If Donald actually gets to implement these policies, it should prove an interesting experiment.
--Hiram
I'm hurt. It sounds like you did not read the linked article.
What spending? This, for starters:
http://www.speroforum.com/a/BITGBOLDQQ48/79444-Government-reveals-massive-cost-per-month-for-illegal-alien-minors?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PAQNJEUILZ25&utm_content=BITGBOLDQQ48&utm_source=news&utm_term=Government+reveals+massive+cost+per+month+for+illegal+alien+minors#.WEBtfNSevih
Jerry's Link
Jerry,
Now where are all the tax dollars that ~11 Million illegal workers and their families pay into our many various tax systems every month?
Politifact
Wiki is even better
John, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are agreeing that illegal immigrants are a net drain on the economy, I have to agree. If you want to side with Politico and count illegal immigrants as somehow a net positive, I must say this: They are NOT SUPPOSED To BE HERE. If they are a net positive, let us force them out and then let them back in on some legal-- e.g. guest worker-- basis. If not, force them out and make them come back on some legal basis only if they offer a net positive (which used to be established policy).
I think they are a slight net negative, but nothing huge with regard to direct governmental expense to them. They generate money and cost money. I liked the wiki link best.
But the fact that they take jobs and keep wages down for our most questionable employees is what drives up "their indirect" cost. Imagine all the legal American citizens who could get off welfare, snap, medicaid, if 11 million positions opened up and this forced companies to pay more.
Post a Comment