DACA

[SimpleDon]

The illegal immigration mess has some parallels to the war on drugs.

1. In both of them we have a huge demand in the US and there is a huge supply sitting on the other side of the border.
2. In both of them we have tried to limit the trade at the border and to make the trade illegal.
3. In both cases we are reluctant to reduce the demand.
4. We have failed to reduce the cross border trade in both cases by any meaningful measure.
5. We have failed to solve both problems by passing legislation to make them illegal by any meaningful measure.

Any economist can tell you why our efforts to resolve both have failed. It is because we haven't concentrated on the supply and the demand of the two problems and instead are trying to reduce the traffic at the border. What this does is to force the people who profit from the traffic to devise ever more creative ways to cross the border.

The comparison does breakdown in the details, of course. The supply in the immigration problem are otherwise unemployed people and the demand is for their cheap labor in the US. In the drug problem the supply is drugs and the demand is for them to satisfy an addiction, for cheap trills or for an actual physical addiction.

I don't think that any of the above are controversial except for number 3, that we are reluctant to reduce the demand.

In the case of illegal drugs we reluctant to use the method that nearly every other developed country uses, to treat drug addiction as an illness best treated by a regime of maintenance drugs. This is the way that we treat diabetes and congenital heart failure. Most of our drug treatment centers believe that giving addicts drugs like methadone to be giving in to the addiction and prefer cold turkey twelve step programs relying a great deal on ineffective measures like religion and prayer, the one way conversation with no one.

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

The Reagan bill also gave the hope to the illegals that they could eventually achieve permanent status in the US when another amnesty bill is passed, but this pales in its impact to the loophole that removed any risk in benefiting from the cheap labor provided by the illegals. It is the loophole that put food on the table while the illegals were waiting for the next amnesty bill.

 

[Toni]

All true. Also a good description of Trump. Credit where it's due.

A "creeper" perhaps, but don't you think all this #metoo nonsense is playing right into this "can't be alone with a woman other than his wife" thing? Isn't that the neo-Victorian direction we are moving toward, sadly?



Probably true for Trump as well, unless Dems completely botch the nomination process again. But in that case Pence could squeeze through as well.


Are you thinking about impeaching both simultaneously (President Pelosi ) or just hoping to get a veto power over any VP nomination President Pence might field?

For the most part, I think no one gives much thought to Pence at all. Which is his greatest strength/secret super power. My own personal opinion is that young women have absolutely nothing to fear if left alone with Pence. Young men might be entirely different.

The Me Too movement can be more directly to the self described pussy grabber in chief. Under Obama, I think we all allowed ourselves to believe that things were getting better,in a global sense, if not personally. If nothing else, Trump’s presidency has highlighted—glaringly—just how much progress there is to be made on so many fronts.

And yeah: #Me Too.

Obama bombed seven countries in six years namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. How is that getting better,in a global sense. Maybe Trump can outdo him.

I was speaking domestically, and as a woman. I believe that Obama was held in a great deal of respect by world leaders.

Here's this:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/

 

[TSwizzle]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

 

[Elixir]

So... secretary Munchkin says Cheato's position on DACA "depends on what we get in return".

There ya have it. Trump considers resolving things for DACA recipients to be a big concession on his part, as he is vehemently opposed to allowing these people (who fucking grew up in the US!) to stay here.
Once again, the liar in chief is on the wrong side of an 80/20 division in popular opinion.
Looks like #TrumpShitdownII is on the horizon.

 

[Ford]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punishable with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

FIFY

Here in Arizona we've had some laws cracking down on illegal immigrants you may have heard of, but what you may not know is we also have laws on the books that set out punishments for hiring illegals. Know how many businesses were punished?

http://tucson.com/news/opinion/editorial/arizona-blows-smoke-in-crackdown-on-employers-of-undocumented-workers/article_82d368cf-0d4d-5ca3-beed-8fa03179fce8.html

Tough-on-immigration state lawmakers huffed and puffed when they approved the Legal Arizona Workers Act. They were going to bust employers who hired illegal immigrants instead of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

A new report from the Cato Institute proves that the “act” was a phony show.

...


The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has not prosecuted a single employer since 2010. According to Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, her office has received a paltry 12 complaints since 2008 — the year the law became effective. Only one case met the standard for legal action, and is still open.

Our famously tough sheriff (and now Senate candidate) Joe Arpaio led many very high profile raids on businesses suspected of hiring illegals. 'Ole Joe made a show of his "catch" sitting on the curb in zip ties, but those were the immigrants. Know how many business owners he arrested?

Zero.


As Don said above, there are parallels to the drug "war." Law enforcement goes after the easy targets. You round up a bunch of day laborers and it makes for good copy, but arresting wealthy business owners isn't going to go over very well when election season comes along.

 

[TSwizzle]

Lots of companies are punished for hiring illegals. I'm sure some may get away with it for whatever reason. a warning perhaps but there are plenty of firms getting fined for it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Obama bombed seven countries in six years namely Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria. How is that getting better,in a global sense. Maybe Trump can outdo him.

I was speaking domestically, and as a woman. I believe that Obama was held in a great deal of respect by world leaders.

Here's this:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-obama-at-war/

Of course he's respected.

 

[humbleman]

So, you feel "sorry" for those illegal immigrants brought by their parents without "their consent" to the US, and now are older and working and producing for "a better" American society.

You must watch this. DACA demonstrators turning down a mock statue of Mr. Sessions.

In the interview, one of the protesters making threats between his arguments, saying that if the government won't help to solve the DACA situation, then "there will be consequences", that they are well organized, etc.

This is not more asking for clemency and understanding, now they want to force the US government to concede their demands.



You probably don't know much about Mexican culture. They have children in the US. Their children grow up. They look "Latino", and by chance you ask what is their nationality, they will respond Mexican, Salvadorian, etc. Then you ask, what part of Mexico or El Salvador or Honduras, and they will clarify that they were born in the US but their parents came from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras.

The children of Mexican, Salvadorians and more, are educated differently, the parents teach them to love Mexico over the US. The news lie to you when they say that they love America. Such is not true, their love their parents countries over America.

Look at the video below.

You can see how much they love "their country". They don't show the American flag as their goal, but they prefer to identify themselves as Mexicans.

Trust me in this. Mexicans goal is not becoming Americans but making of America another Mexico.

If you don't see any problem in having America becoming another Mexico, then you must watch how Mexico is right now, because such is what illegal immigrants want. (In Mexico, traffic laws are violated and by giving some money to the police officer the penalty or reprimand is avoided. Such won't happen in the US.)



On the other hand.

Check what the UK was doing in 2017

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/europe/europe-refugee-policy/index.html

The UK government recently announced it was halting a program to resettle lone refugee children, after 350 had been brought to Britain. Campaigners had hoped that 3,000 children would benefit from the scheme, introduced last year.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd told the House of Commons the government did not want the so-called Dubs amendment to act as a "pull factor" encouraging unaccompanied minors to travel to Europe: "We do not want to incentivize perilous journeys to Europe, particularly by the most vulnerable children."

Alfred Dubs, who came to the UK as a child refugee on the "Kindertransport" from the Czech Republic in 1939 and who designed the program, expressed his dismay at the decision. "It's bitterly disappointing," the Labour politician told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "I think they wanted to shut the thing down and found any excuse to do it."

NGO Help Refugees is taking legal action against the government over their handling of the Dubs amendment. In a statement, they allege that the Home Secretary's "failure to implement her Dubs duties towards unaccompanied children in Calais ... contributed to [them] being exposed to serious human rights violations." The case will be heard in June.
The government's move is just the latest in a series of measures designed to reduce the number of child refugees eligible to come to the UK.

In November 2016, the Home Office issued new guidance barring unaccompanied refugees from Afghanistan, Yemen and Eritrea older than 12, who were living in the now-demolished "Jungle" camp at Calais in northern France, from entering the UK if they have no family there.

The following month the government ended the process of transferring children from France after resettling 750 of the 1,900 registered minors, according to Human Rights Watch. Rudd said she was "proud" of the UK government's "active approach to helping and sheltering the most vulnerable."

And think about the next. What the governments of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, etc are doing to stop this migration of people?

Contrary to what you think, authorities (representatives) from El Salvador who recently have visited the US, said that their migrating people are brave and heroes, and are paying taxes and "social security" (?) so they deserve to stay in the US.

Apparently many Americans supporting illegal immigration are admirers of those foreign brave heroes.

 

[Ford]

Trust me in this.

Why? After your impassioned defense of Hitler it is difficult to believe you'd be trustworthy on racial issues, let alone an expert in Mexican culture.

 

[humbleman]

Trust me in this.

Why? After your impassioned defense of Hitler it is difficult to believe you'd be trustworthy on racial issues, let alone an expert in Mexican culture.

What a miserable education you might have received.

Don't let your low instincts to mix one topic with another.

If you don't like me at all, believe me I feel the same about you, but I do keep order and won't use what you talk in other topics to use them in this topic.

Street people keep these same principles, and I come from the street, so I can confirm it.

________________________________________________________________
What the US media is not showing is how these "dreamers" in their protest are demanding not only about their legal status but also the legalization of their parents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...b822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.d193f9f50807

On Friday, Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said he was hopeful that Congress would pass the Dream Act, which has not cleared both houses since it was introduced 16 years ago. He acknowledged that a law that would protect only young immigrants brought here as children would be difficult for DACA beneficiaries to swallow, since their parents would remain at risk of deportation.

But he said they should take up one battle at a time.

“You are the most beloved, the most cared for, the most recognized of our immigrants,” he said Friday. “What chance do I have for your mom and dad if I lose you?”

You concede five feet they will take 50 yards.

Congress must study this issue before making decisions without considering future consequences. Illegals will never stop demanding a complete legal status as a reward for crossing illegally the US borders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

The basic problem is that they get fake ID, the employer doesn't know.

We do not have a good system to combat this. There is the e-verify system but I think it's a bad idea--until we can deal with identity theft we can't stop illegals from stealing citizen identities to work--and illegals + identity theft causes a lot more problem than simply illegals.

Solve identity theft first, then we can actually block the hiring of illegals.

 

[humbleman]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

The basic problem is that they get fake ID, the employer doesn't know.

We do not have a good system to combat this. There is the e-verify system but I think it's a bad idea--until we can deal with identity theft we can't stop illegals from stealing citizen identities to work--and illegals + identity theft causes a lot more problem than simply illegals.

Solve identity theft first, then we can actually block the hiring of illegals.

This is a very complicated problem to be solved just by pressure of "you pass DACA otherwise we will keep the government shutdown".

My position about illegal immigration is very simple: you have not been invited by the US government to live legally in the US, then you are inside the US borders at your own risk.

This is to say, not the US government but the parents of the dreamers are responsible for their future.

The governments of Mexico, El Salvador, Spain or wherever, are the responsible of their illegal immigrants in the US.

When US citizens has problems in other countries, they ask for help to the US embassy. The US government will make the necessary steps to solve the problem.

Why illegal immigrants ask the US government for help rather than asking to their correspondent embassies?

My solution is simple: to every illegal immigrant never have the opportunity to receive permanent residence under any circumstances. In "compensation" to this action, no persecution will be made against them by the US authorities. However, if they get caught by actions they make, like crimes or stealing social security numbers, etc, they might face jail and or deportation.

On the other hand, stronger measures to protect the US border must be implied.

If illegal immigrant don't show a valid US ID, and they have children inside the US, their children won't be recognized as US citizens.

The measure enforcing the policy that illegal immigrant come at their own risk is a permanent solution.

About paying taxes, no matter the legal status, people have lights in the streets, fire department helping in any crisis, police, education, etc which are paid with collected taxes. As illegal immigrants came at their own risk, they won't have part of benefits, even when they pay taxes. This is the penalty for their illegal entrance to the US.

No persecution.

This is the real humanitarian action of this solution to stop illegal immigration.

As long as they don't commit any crime, they won't be persecuted by any US agency. They can work, but they won't receive any driver license, however they can freely take the bus, they can buy food, they can buy a house if no US valid ID is asked, they can live freely without fears inside the US.

If you think this is making a kind of second class of inhabitants in the US, remember that it was the choice of the illegal immigrant to live this way inside the US.

To promote the legal arrival of immigrants, the whole cases of legalization for people living illegally inside the US must be eradicated. The process for foreign people living in their countries and applying for legal residence in the US must be faster after taking away the applications of the illegal immigrants.

The proposed idea of letting illegal immigrants to live freely but without receiving any single benefit for the government is not new. This is how lots of migrants lived in foreign countries in the past.

Times have changed but illegal immigration still is the same.

Better to keep the rules from the past which avoided the status of perturbing the affected societies invaded by illegal immigrants. In those years, societies didn't feel the presence of illegal immigrants, and this should be how a good solution should be, protecting the existing society over protecting the ones who came illegally and are now demanding and threatening the established societies.

 

[TSwizzle]

Good grief. Last person out, turn off the lights.

 

[barbos]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

I remember when I worked for US government, all cleaning ladies were mexican and none of them spoke english. I wonder whether or not they were legal.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What a miserable education you might have received.

Don't let your low instincts to mix one topic with another.

But he's not mixing topics.
The single topic is your personal credibility, which you yourself introduced with 'trust me in this.'
To which I would add your highly subjective and fact-free display on the subject of lisping waiters posing a health threat far greater than a 'motherly type' waitress with a sex dungeon.

Why would anyone who didn't already agree with you trust you on anything?

 

[Keith&Co.]

My solution is simple: to every illegal immigrant never have the opportunity to receive permanent residence under any circumstances.

That is simple, yes.

Would that apply to yourself, though?

I mean, I BELIEVE I was born in the US. I have a birth certificate from a tiny little town in Idaho. But I only really have the word of my parents about that. I don't remember it. It's possible I was born in some other country and entered the US illegally, where a sympathetic (or bribable) official provided documentation to support the story my parents later told.

I grew up pretty sure I was American. I served in the military, had a clearance above Top Secret, was 'Decorated,' and work as a contractor now. I've been voting since Reagan.

How's your stance if it suddenly comes out that my parents are frauds? As far as I know, as far as I live, I'm as American as anyone else in the room, any room, and suddenly I'm to be deported to god-only-knows-where because of a lie someone else told?
Do I get my service to the country back on the way out? You guys owe me 20 years.

 

[RavenSky]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

The basic problem is that they get fake ID, the employer doesn't know.

We do not have a good system to combat this. There is the e-verify system but I think it's a bad idea--until we can deal with identity theft we can't stop illegals from stealing citizen identities to work--and illegals + identity theft causes a lot more problem than simply illegals.

Solve identity theft first, then we can actually block the hiring of illegals.

DACA recipients have legal social security numbers and are legally allowed to work in the United States.

This thread is about DACA and DACA recipients, so it would be better to stick to discussion that is on topic.

It is a tactic of the racism-based anti-immigration bunch to conflate undocumented immigration in general with DACA in particular.

 

[SimpleDon]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

But there is no requirement that the employer has to check whether or not the subcontractor is employing illegals or not. This is the loophole that has driven 9 million illegals through from the time that the law was passed to the peak of illegals in the US before George W. Bush came up with the perfect solution to the illegal immigration problem, he destroyed the economy with the Great Recession and reduced the demand for the illegals" labor.

 

[humbleman]

What a miserable education you might have received.

Don't let your low instincts to mix one topic with another.

But he's not mixing topics.
The single topic is your personal credibility, which you yourself introduced with 'trust me in this.'
To which I would add your highly subjective and fact-free display on the subject of lisping waiters posing a health threat far greater than a 'motherly type' waitress with a sex dungeon.

Why would anyone who didn't already agree with you trust you on anything?

Good, then "trust" those illegal immigrants who applied to DACA.

This is the "simple" process they want.

First, they will become permanent residents in the US.

Second, after 5 years they will apply for citizenship.

Third, after obtaining their citizenship they will make "petitions" for the permanent residence of their parents and other family who didn't fit in DACA.

At the end, in a period of six to ten years, the three million individuals who obtained permanent resident thanks to the DACA program will become ten to twelve million, probably more.


In other words, conceding to their legal status in the US will be conceding that the illegal entrance by their parents to the US was "a great thing", claps to them, they reached what they wanted, they used their children with the purpose of mocking about you and the law, and apparently you are happy with it.

Why you just don't ask the government to stop wasting money with "border security? Go ahead, clap and enjoy how those illegal immigrants are making you a complete idiot.

If they were smart to travel miles and miles, crossing the US border, live in the US, obtained illegally social security numbers, obtained driver license, and even "voted" in elections, they are smarter than you, and they can easily manipulate you when they play the "poor victims" and you believe them. Lol

You don't want to trust me, fine.

Use your fingers helping you to count, a piece of paper and a pen, and or a calculator and do your mathematics.

Yes, trust those guys who are playing the "victims" here, their plan is to legalize as much illegal immigrants they can.

The best answer is "no legalization of any illegal immigrant living in the US".

My initiative is not radical but necessary, like

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/resistance-no-marriage-licenses-for-anyone/

Resistance! No marriage licenses for anyone

Some state legislators and judges are considering getting out of the marriage business entirely – refusing to offer licenses to anyone – in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision Friday that legalizes same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

Mississippi State House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, told the Jackson Clarion Ledger he’s still reviewing the Supreme Court ruling, but one possibility could be for the state to quit issuing licenses.

See?

I'm not alone with this kind of initiatives, which are simple.

In order to stop illegal immigration, a good initiative is never ever giving them any opportunity to become legal residents of the US and not giving them any official ID like driver licenses.

There is no other way.

 

[TSwizzle]

In the illegal immigration problem we refuse to punish the creators of the demand, the employers, who want to hire cheap labor to increase their profits. This is easily traced to the Ronald Reagan amnesty legislation of 1986 (I think) that put the massive loophole into immigration law that an employer couldn't be prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants if the illegals were in the employ of a subcontractor.

That is not accurate. Hiring illegals is punished with heavy fines and possibly jail time. If an employer uses a subcontractor and knows the subcontractor is using illegals, there are fines also. It's not a case of they cannot be prosecuted, they just can't be held responsible if they didn't know the subcontractor was using illegals. The subcontractor faces the consequences alone in these situations.

But there is no requirement that the employer has to check whether or not the subcontractor is employing illegals or not.

This is true and I noted that earlier. That check is the responsibility of the subcontractor. But as I pointed out earlier, if a company is caught using a contractor that employs illegals knowingly, there are consequences.

Anyway, mod wants to stay on topic with DACA so that's all from me. Cheers.