I keep asking of people with more Liberal views.
And all I receive in exchange is the sounds of crickets. Which leads me to believe that they support pretty much uncontrolled unlimited legal / illegal immigration.
Does that mean anyone who shows up at our border and says... "My (our) life sucks in my (our) home country"... is allowed in? Without yearly quantity limits?
Help us more conservative folks understand your plan...
"So what is your proposal to control access on our Southern border?
Or do you support no Southern border control and allowing anyone who gets to the border to enter our country?
Please think before you answer... There are ~7 BILLION people on earth and many of them are poor destitute and would love to live in the USA.
How many do you want to let in? Remembering that we are already at record levels. And our poor have a hard time making a living wage here...
And just raising taxes and government spending is not an adequate answer.
Instead of complaining and name calling... Give us solutions. "
And all I receive in exchange is the sounds of crickets. Which leads me to believe that they support pretty much uncontrolled unlimited legal / illegal immigration.
Does that mean anyone who shows up at our border and says... "My (our) life sucks in my (our) home country"... is allowed in? Without yearly quantity limits?
Help us more conservative folks understand your plan...
43 comments:
"Give us solutions."
You're assuming that everyone shares your view of what the problem is. I don't think that's the case, which is likely why your braying for folks to answer you has gone unheeded.
Welcome to the wonderful world of liberals, where all you have to do is FEEL that something should be the way you think it should, and it becomes reality. They have the marvelous ability to hold two totally contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time. In this case, that everybody should come here because it would be "good," and that having everybody come here would be "bad." You don't get a REAL solution to a conundrum like that, you get screaming opposition to what anybody wants to do to actually resolve it.
It's a problem of ambivalence. Republicans like immigration because it's a source of cheap labor. Democrats like immigration because our constituents have relatives coming to this country. In a consensus based system of government, when powerful interests are in conflict, nothing ever gets done.
--Hiram
What seems to have the most impact on immigration is the relative state of the economy. If the economy elsewhere is good, fewer people immigrate. So the obvious thing to do is to work to improve various economies.
--Hiram
Sean,
What do you think the problem is then? Maybe Liberals see the problem as:
Why we can't we turn more uneducated unskilled refugees from poor countries and illegals into US citizens faster?... And...
Why can't we raise taxes on successful American citizens much higher and faster to fund all the programs needed to support American born and the new poorer citizens?
Why can't we raise taxes on successful American citizens much higher and faster to fund all the programs needed to support American born and the new poorer citizens?
Because it's very hard to raise taxes, particularly on the successful who can and know how to hire lobbyists.
--Hiram
OK, that didn't take long. Back to telling me what my argument is? See ya.
Jerry,
Personally I don't think they can get past:
"we need to help everyone who makes it to our border / country"...
The idea that they are flooding our labor market with more low end workers and therefore holding down wages in America does not enter into their thought process.
Just like when they buy that low American Content car. Or that low American Content major appliance.
They are all for the low end American worker until it comes to spending their money... :-)
Sean,
Actually I asked you questions... Since all you did was critique me personally and my post... Which I am fine with and you are always welcome to do so.
You really did not provide any position, rationale, facts, data, etc regarding post topic...
By the way, I agree it is challenging topic.
You asked the question validly, and then you stated what you think the liberal position might be using your wording and framing. That's dishonest and disrespectful, and I've objected to it many times. So don't sit here and say you were just asking questions, because that's a bunch of crap.
If no Liberals are willing to state and defend their position(s). I will continue to paraphrase what I am hearing in hope that someday they will correct it.
Please remember that I like the talking stick concept. I am just not certain how to implement it via a blog.
So I offer you or others to "guest post", or you can leave as many comments as you wish. I offer to cross link to any site they choose. But at some point I will strive to paraphrase what I have heard in attempt to clarify my and explain my understanding back to the person(s).
Then you have a choice to make. Do you chastise me because my interpretation is incorrect from your perspective? (ie think ill of my intentions) Or do you clarify / correct my statement of understanding? (ie accept that I still don't get it)
It is hard to communicate with people who believe and value different things.
"But at some point I will strive to paraphrase what I have heard in attempt to clarify my and explain my understanding back to the person(s)."
Your comments above are not paraphrasing, as I have already explained above (and similarly on other occasions). It's not my job to accept your view of the world, so please don't put your words in my mouth.
Losing elections means we get to sit down for a while. But immigration policy isn't rocket science. But we know that sound policy has both a benefit and a cost. We know that to stem immigration, we must implement policies that improve the economy in the region, policies that will both benefit and hurt Americans.
Trump, let's recall, is a con man. And it's of the essence of a con men to trade nothing for something. His inability to do that on the world stage explains why he is much better at breaking deals than making deals. Where immigration is concerned as in much else, he has benefited from an improving economy both here and globally. That's why the immigration crisis is much more his paranoid delusion than any sort of reality, better people of sounder judgment have to respond to.
--Hiram
The president wants to be negotiated into doing his job. I don't we should have to do that.
--Hiram
Sean,
Please remember that I did not attribute anything to you... I asked you a question and proposed what generic Liberals may see as the problems.
"Sean,
What do you think the problem is then? Maybe Liberals see the problem as:"
And I am indifferent if you accept my world view or not. I am pretty comfortable that we are all staying pretty entrenched in our positions.
However if you want others to understand your world view, preferred policies, etc... You do need to explain them and answer questions about them.
Hiram,
I disagree, Trump is a master manipulator who is used to taking risks and lying, not a con man.
His escalating the immigration issue through the use of kids got people discussing solutions again, when they were happy to DO NOTHING in 2018... It is the Dems and GOP politicians in Congress who have been failing to act for years.
Trump jarred them to start talking again in an election year. Of course the DEMS are not offering much of anything, it seems to be their way or the highway. Three cheers for Trump in this case.
Unless you think we should pay for all these expensive politicians, staff, etc to do nothing but campaign in an election year?
PMFBI, but I am sensing that Sean has a problem reacting to your questions because he does not accept the initial premise, or at least that it was correctly stated. just looking back, the question was, roughly, "how would you control access to the southern border?" I suspect a fundamental disagreement with the words "control" and "access" and with accepting such as a statement of the general problem of illegal immigration. My preferred solution, for example includes mandatory e- verify for all new employees and mandatory "guest worker status" for 90% of those already known to be here. It is a pretty good solution for the problem of illegal immigration without any "control" of the southern border whatsoever. I doubt that is what Sean has in mind for the more general problem, but I do like Hiram's idea about improving the economy (and political conditions) in the source countries.
I've said plenty of times in the past that the bipartisan immigration bill which passed the Senate a few years back was a pretty good bill.
The Democratic Party or "liberals" aren't generally supporting open borders, no control, no limits, or any of the other nonsense you've tried to attribute to them in this thread. You can see what they voted for in 2013. You can see the sort of proposals brought forward earlier this year (like McCain-Coons or Graham-Durbin). So don't put those words in their (our) mouths.
It's really ought not be this difficult to comprehend.
Jerry,
Unfortunately E Verify only applies to people who are working at businesses. Many of these folks are self employed and work for cash. What types of punishments are you willing to enforce on Mom for paying "the help", "the nanny", "the pool guy", "the landscape guys", "the roofers" or "the lawn guy" in cash? Or the migratory field crews that clean fields or harvest crops for cash? Are you ready to home owners and farmers in jail?
As for "improving the economy" in other countries, that was one of the best things about NAFTA... And Trump is trying trash it. I wonder if he is ready for the additional illegals.
Finally, your recommendations do nothing to slow the more nefarious border crossing activities. (ie drug smuggling, human trafficking, etc) Thoughts?
Sean,
Unfortunately the 2013 Senate Bill seems to have offered little in the way of improved border security.
I agree with Trump that one has to absolutely STOP Illegal Crossings. As long there is the hope of success, desperate people will risk their lives trying.
So do you think Liberals are okay with us sending 99+% of people back to their home country?
Or if they are from Central America and have a sad story, will they say we should let them in?
Ultimately this comes down to what is the purpose of the American Immigration policy?
- To help 1+ million people a year enter the "American Lifeboat".
- To help America succeed by bringing in people who can help our country thrive.
Or just assuming 1 million per year...
What mix of the above?
I think 200,000 "Life Boaters" and 800,00 "Make America Greaters" sounds much wiser than our current mix.
That way we can afford to keep helping people in their home countries.
The suggestions I've made reportedly apply to about 9 million of the 10 million known illegals (at last count). When it was tried in a couple of states, many thousands of people simply "disappeared," presumably back where they came from.
As for the correct "mix" of LEGAL immigrants, that can be worked out after the border is secure and everybody that comes does so legally. Once we stop the "refugee" flow, the border patrol can concentrate on the other "nefarious" activities, and a WALL would help that, too.
Sean, how do you account for the complete and total Democrat intransigence on the "compromise" bills currently before the House?
Jerry,
"disappeared" = went home... Really?
Is that where the 1500 "disappeared" kids went? Back to their home country? Excellent... :-)
However above you down played the "border security" aspect in favor of e verify etc. And you neglected to answer my questions regarding how to punish people who hire illegals.
A president who lies whee the interests of children are concerned was greeted by a rapturous reception in Duluth. Minnesotans should be ashamed.
--Hiram
I cannot answer for where people disappear to when they disappear. But it was reported at the time that apartments and classrooms suddenly became vacant. Sure, some no doubt went to adjacent states, but that's the advantage of making e-Verify national. As for the kids Obama "lost," they supposedly went to relatives and "sponsors," just like the 500 or so Trump admin. have already moved out of detention.
How to punish people who hire illegals? Under the state E-verify laws, the first failure to use E-verify for a new employee (and if the check came back clean the employer was off the hook) resulted in loss of business license for 6 months. The second resulted in loss of business license. The only requirement was that E-verify be used.
By the way, while the media howl about 2300 children "separated from their parents," some 20,000 "unaccompanied minors"-- kids of parents who voluntarily separated themselves from their kids-- are still being cared for on this side of the border. Anybody want to blame Trump for /that/?
Hiram,
As discussed previously, It takes a few broken eggs to make an omelette.
Jerry,
Many of the "employers" are private citizens, what then?
Please note that no one was complaining about "unaccompanied minors" until Trump started creating them by taking away their parent(s)... :-)
Most of the employers are businesses, or clients of businesses. I don't venture into the streets to hire a nanny or roofer; I use a service. Let's not let a good solution be lost because it isn't perfect. 80% is good enough.
If no one was complaining about "unaccompanied minors" before, what does that tell you about media bias and Democrat hypocrisy? Tempest in a teapot, anyone?
"Sean, how do you account for the complete and total Democrat intransigence on the "compromise" bills currently before the House?"
The "compromise" in the House bills are compromises made among competing groups of Republicans. They're not consulting with Nancy Pelosi to see how these provisions can get Democratic votes.
Jerry:
Source for 80%? By the way, one does not need to go on the streets to look for undocumented help. Just put an ad on line and they will find you.
Not really, unaccompanied minors are not the fault of Obama or Trump. But when Trump and Session start a policy that does separate kids from their parent(s)... They own the problem.
" They're not consulting with Nancy Pelosi to see how these provisions can get Democratic votes."
I know. Do you honestly believe it would be worth the time to do so? During debate, have Democrats motioned for substantive amendments, or simply dismissed the whole thing? When it comes to a vote, are individual D members free to vote "aye" or are they under strict orders to vote against anything and everything? I don't know, I'm just casting suspicions (and maybe aspersions) based on what I see.
80% comes from Pareto's law. And from Reagan's great speech.
Online, really? And these "unskilled workers," who barely speak English if at all, have access to and know how to work computers?
So you have no source to confirm that e verify would resolve 80% of the problem.
And apparently no desire to throw private citizens in jail for hiring the "illegal help".
8.5 million out of ~10?
I think losing a business license permanently beats jail time. And the IRS DOES go after people with illegal nannies. A couple high-profile politicians have lost careers for it.
So you are claiming the all of those 8.5 million letters are for illegal workers. Correct?
Now you did see all the potential reasons.(see below) Didn't you?
And since there are quite literally hundreds of millions of workers / new hires each year. (including 10's of millions of kids with temp jobs and little form filling knowledge)
I am thinking you are incorrect.
"Why did you receive a letter?
• Information you provided on W-2s to SSA is incorrect due to:
– Typographical errors
– Name changes
– Incomplete or blank name/SSN reported
– Deceased SSN being used
– Identity fraud
– Undocumented Worker"
Now what I found interesting in the presentation is that ICE has prosecuted and gained huge settlements from employers. And you seem to believe that legal companies are still risking multi-million dollar fines by employing millions of illegals. Apparently fines are not working.
Yes there are politicians who have gotten in trouble for not doing the right paperwork for their hired help. This is typically learned of from some informant or intensive background check.
Now what do you want to do with the other tens of millions of citizens every year who are out to "save a few bucks" by hiring the less expensive illegal worker?
Jail time, big fines, etc? And how are you going to catch them?
Trump recommends No Due Process... What is he thinking... :-(
"What is he thinking."
He's thinking that he has supporters, like jerry, who will think this, like everything he does, is also worth supporting.
Or he literally has zero understanding of the document he swore to preserve, protect, and defend.
Moose
I personally do not understand why non-US citizens who are here illegally do receive "US Due Process" and I do not have time to study it today.
Do you know why?
Maybe because they are human beings.
Moose
But to further clarify, Section 1 of the 14th amendment tells us:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Moose
Here is an interesting piece along the lines of what you wrote.
Rights of Illegal Residents
Now if they are stopped at the border and told "go home"... Is that a problem?
I would imagine that depends if they're seeking asylum.
Moose
Post a Comment