Immigration Policy - What Should Be Done

[steve_bank]

In the news about 1.8 million people have been apprehended crossing the border and 300,000 have been allowed to stay pending court appearnce to here a plea for asylum.

Record Numbers of Migrants Arrested at Southern Border, With Two Million Annual Total in Sight

Border Patrol agents have made about 1.82 million arrests at the southern border in the government’s fiscal year so far, which ends Sept. 30. The surge comes amid rising political tension between the Biden administration and Republican-led states.

www.wsj.com

Who is supposed to care for these 300,000 people on top of those already waiting from previous years? Texas? Federal money?

We saw a long period of reporting on bad conditions at borderr faculties, but what do we expect wit such large numbers. It is an impossible situation.

Does anyone understand the scope? 300000 people is a small city. It stresses police, social devices, medical services, and education,

What do you think should be done?

Should anyone be able to walk across the borer and claim asylum?

In te news people from around the ord are showing up at the border.

Is asylum law meant to cover anyone who says they are afraid where they live or was it intended for real political refugees, those fleeing because of there public politics in a non democratic authoritarian system or dictatorship?

A political activist fleeing physical threatens.

IMO our attempts to appear humanitarian are only making it worse. Diden says it is un-American to oppose the situation as it is.

As I see it the order has to be closed to walking across.

The democtas right now have the power in congress to change immigration law. They are acting as if nothing is wrong.

The lack of action may hand the presidency to a republican even Trump.

This is one of te few tmies I will be emailing my representatives.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Democrats don’t have the votes to modify immigration law in the Senate, they don’t have 60 votes.

They’ve been only able to pass budget related bills with reconciliation.

 

[bilby]

Does anyone understand the scope? 300000 people is a small city.

It's the number of people who enter the US from uterine confinement in a single month.

For every one of these cross-border migrants, a dozen totally dependent new citizens with no education or skills of any kind are arriving, without anyone getting upset.

I think the person lacking understanding of scope here is you.

 

[Patooka]

I'm a little bit curious about the WSJ's wording. Is it 1.8 million migrants or 1.8 million arrests? Worse case scenario, you're talking about 0.6% increase in the population. I think the US can weather that just fine. Maybe you should stop thinking of them as people and maybe consider them to be a smarter investment than some inbred fuckwit with a red baseball cap.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Does anyone understand the scope? 300000 people is a small city.

It's the number of people who enter the US from uterine confinement in a single month.

For every one of these cross-border migrants, a dozen totally dependent new citizens with no education or skills of any kind are arriving, without anyone getting upset.

I think the person lacking understanding of scope here is you.

True, however, a good deal of money needs to be spent for those utterly helpless humans, but they are small and easier to store.

In the border crossing case, still need money and larger housing than for human bites, and the United States has hated immigrants since it was the Colonies and refuses to grow up and deal with the problem. So these wanderers are subjected to hardships of poor living conditions and the local towns are stretched because America just sucks at accepting it has a need for immigrant workers... always has... likely always will.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

needed: Sanctuary


ALL developed countries should come together, combining resources, to establish some kind of sanctuary for all refugees, asylum-seekers -- actually just anyone from anywhere who wants a place, no questions asked. Any human who shows up.

The U.S. should take the lead with this, but it would require all the wealthier nations to cooperate.

The sanctuary would be like a small nation, or colony -- maybe more than one -- where the residents might remain permanently if they choose. If it should evolve into something similar to a nation, with an economy and some self-reliance, then an unconditional requirement upon it would be that it has to always remain open to newcomers without limit. And the subsidy from wealthy nations would be permanent, as needed, to keep it committed to this requirement.

It would likely remain poor, but the subsidy would be designed to assure some subsistence-level minimum living standard -- a safety-net floor of some kind. There are many possibilities for some such refuge for all, to evolve into something good, or also to go bad if the planning isn't right.

There are spaces in the world for this. The increasing numbers of refugees worldwide and the tragedies and atrocities being suffered require that something new be done by whoever has the means to try something.

As climate-change gets worse, the flight from poor countries to a better location is going to keep increasing.

 

[Hermit]

Brilliant idea, @Lumpenproletariat. But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives. Otherwise you'd just create problems with NIMBYs.

The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Best of all would be Antarctica.

Ah, so many options about creating a "sanctuary" for the currently 89.3 million people worldwide who were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's take temporarily displaced humans and permanently displace them in a nation / area that doesn't exist. Brilliant! All nations would need to help fund this nation / area which would be run by *Error 404 Not Found*. These people would be able to find employment as *Error 404 Not Found* in this completely undeveloped (and non-existent) stretch of land. Oversight of the tens of billions in international funding would be provided by *Error 404 Not Found*.

Brilliant idea. So much better than absorbing the refugees across the globe into established populations with work forces and homes (running sewers).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the news about 1.8 million people have been apprehended crossing the border and 300,000 have been allowed to stay pending court appearnce to here a plea for asylum.

Record Numbers of Migrants Arrested at Southern Border, With Two Million Annual Total in Sight

Border Patrol agents have made about 1.82 million arrests at the southern border in the government’s fiscal year so far, which ends Sept. 30. The surge comes amid rising political tension between the Biden administration and Republican-led states.

www.wsj.com

Who is supposed to care for these 300,000 people on top of those already waiting from previous years? Texas? Federal money?

The United States, who has used and taken advantage of immigrant and illegal immigrant labor for over a century. It is time we accept that this exists and that we take advantage of it.. even today. It is time to stop the childish denial, it is time to stop being so damn naïve.

Immigration shouldn't be an endless stream of people... but 300,000 is not an endless stream of people. We can deal with that if some of us stopped acting like ignorant sots. The solution to the problem is money. These people provide a huge source of cheap labor for jobs us American folk don't want. So we should thank them for doing it, by first stop ignoring what services they do provide!

The right-wing has poisoned this well so badly. Granted, America has hated immigrants since before they were Irish, but even when George W. Bush wanted to put forth a plan and had control of Congress to do so... his own party stopped it. Republicans don't want to solve the immigration problem... they just want to blame immigration for the ills of America.

 

[laughing dog]

Brilliant idea, @Lumpenproletariat. But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives. Otherwise you'd just create problems with NIMBYs.

The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Best of all would be Antarctica.

Ah, so many options about creating a "sanctuary" for the currently 89.3 million people worldwide who were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order..

And look out well creating the country of Israel worked out for everyone.

 

[steve_bank]

Brilliant idea, @Lumpenproletariat. But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives. Otherwise you'd just create problems with NIMBYs.

The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Best of all would be Antarctica.

Ah, so many options about creating a "sanctuary" for the currently 89.3 million people worldwide who were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order..

And look out well creating the country of Israel worked out for everyone.

Israeli immigrants all have a strong common thread and bond. It is difficult if not impossible to get Israeli citizenship if you are not Jewish.

If our immigration was as elective we'd call it racist.

 

[steve_bank]

Should we have

1. Needs based immigration,. Assess our economiic needs and select immgtans to meet the needs.

2.Or Obama's diversity immigration lottery. Let anyone in regardless of education, skills, or work experience?


Canada has a mix. I wtched a show compating Candian and American immigration. If yiu are a legal Candian immigrant yiou get support with language and assimilation.

Coud not get a clean copy fr from Wiki.

Immigration to Canada - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Immigration to Canada

Canadian citizenship and immigration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Canadian citizenship and immigration Part of a series on Immigration Nationality Legislation Agencies Issues Demographics Canada portal Annual immigration to Canada 1852-2021[1][2] Percentage of immigrants in Canada (1871-2016)[1] As of 2019, Canada has the eighth largest immigrant population in the world, while foreign-born people make up about one-fifth (21% in 2019) of Canada’s population—one of the highest ratios for industrialized Western countries.[3] In current Canadian law, immigrants are distinguished by four categories:[4] Family: persons closely related to one or more Canadian residents who live in Canada.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#cite_note-5 [*]Economic: skilled workers, caregivers, or business persons. [*]Protected person or Refugee: persons who are escaping persecution, torture, and/or cruel and unusual punishment.[ii] [*]Humanitarian or other: persons accepted as immigrants for humanitarian or compassionate reasons. Following Canada's confederation in 1867, immigration played an integral role in helping develop vast tracts of land.[5] During this era, the Canadian Government would sponsor information campaigns and recruiters to encourage settlement in rural areas; however, this would primarily be only towards those of European and Christian backgrounds, while others—particularly Buddhist, Shinto, Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish immigrants—as well as the poor, ill, and disabled, would be less than welcome.[5][6] Following 1947, in the post-World War II period, Canadian domestic immigration law and policy went through significant changes, most notably with the Immigration Act, 1976, and the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) from 2002.[6]

Percentage of immigrants in Canada (1871-2016)[1]

As of 2019, Canada has the eighth largest immigrant population in the world, while foreign-born people make up about one-fifth (21% in 2019) of Canada’s population—one of the highest ratios for industrialized Western countries.[3]

In current Canadian law, immigrants are distinguished by four categories:[4]

1. Family: persons closely related to one or more Canadian residents who live in Canada.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada#cite_note-5
   [*]Economic: skilled workers, caregivers, or business persons.
   [*]Protected person or Refugee: persons who are escaping persecution, torture, and/or cruel and unusual punishment.[ii]
   [*]Humanitarian or other: persons accepted as immigrants for humanitarian or compassionate reasons.
   

Following Canada's confederation in 1867, immigration played an integral role in helping develop vast tracts of land.[5] During this era, the Canadian Government would sponsor information campaigns and recruiters to encourage settlement in rural areas; however, this would primarily be only towards those of European and Christian backgrounds, while others—particularly Buddhist, Shinto, Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish immigrants—as well as the poor, ill, and disabled, would be less than welcome.[5][6] Following 1947, in the post-World War II period, Canadian domestic immigration law and policy went through significant changes, most notably with the Immigration Act, 1976, and the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) from 2002.[6]

 

[Patooka]

needed: Sanctuary


ALL developed countries should come together, combining resources, to establish some kind of sanctuary for all refugees, asylum-seekers -- actually just anyone from anywhere who wants a place, no questions asked. Any human who shows up.

The U.S. should take the lead with this, but it would require all the wealthier nations to cooperate.

The sanctuary would be like a small nation, or colony -- maybe more than one -- where the residents might remain permanently if they choose. If it should evolve into something similar to a nation, with an economy and some self-reliance, then an unconditional requirement upon it would be that it has to always remain open to newcomers without limit. And the subsidy from wealthy nations would be permanent, as needed, to keep it committed to this requirement.

It would likely remain poor, but the subsidy would be designed to assure some subsistence-level minimum living standard -- a safety-net floor of some kind. There are many possibilities for some such refuge for all, to evolve into something good, or also to go bad if the planning isn't right.

There are spaces in the world for this. The increasing numbers of refugees worldwide and the tragedies and atrocities being suffered require that something new be done by whoever has the means to try something.

As climate-change gets worse, the flight from poor countries to a better location is going to keep increasing.

I thought your solution was to claim Democrats are just as evil as Republicans when it comes to refugees.

Brilliant idea, @Lumpenproletariat. But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives. Otherwise you'd just create problems with NIMBYs.

The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Best of all would be Antarctica.

I've got to admit, the idea of carving up Australia for refugees with no regard for what the people who live here think has a certain symmetry to it.

But if Lumpenproletariat honestly thinks such a solution is even remotely practical, let's double down. Moon colony! It's the perfect solution. No ones sovereignty is encroached, and refugees get land when the value is still cheap. The moon is a property market that can only go up, baby!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

needed: Sanctuary

ALL developed countries should come together, combining resources, to establish some kind of sanctuary for all refugees, asylum-seekers -- actually just anyone from anywhere who wants a place, no questions asked. Any human who shows up.

The U.S. should take the lead with this, but it would require all the wealthier nations to cooperate.

Brilliant idea . . . But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives.

There are plenty of spaces where no one lives.

Otherwise you'd just create problems with NIMBYs.

The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Best of all would be Antarctica.

There are plenty of spaces in most countries other than these extreme examples. Maybe not 200-300 square miles with zero inhabitants. But spaces enough for the settlements, so that all refugees and asylum-seekers could be accommodated.

It's up to the developed nations to come together, get their experts working on this to find sparsely-populated areas for this purpose. If in some cases it would be an area near an existing population, those existing inhabitants might be compensated if they'd rather relocate elsewhere. It's their choice. If they stay, they would just experience a change, still keep their property, and adjust to this change.

The experts deciding this would try to find the least inhabited areas, so the problem of existing inhabitants would be minor compared to the logistics problem, because there are vast regions that are sparsely inhabited and which could sustain colonies like this.

All the developed countries would have to pay a cost. Part of this cost would be to compensate existing inhabitants who would choose to relocate, and also to pay an existing country to yield some territory for such a colony. I.e., it might sell or lease some of its territory.

Just because it would be difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. When the situation is desperate, things are made possible.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let's take temporarily displaced humans and permanently displace them in a nation / area that doesn't exist.

The areas do exist. It's not true that every square foot on planet earth is occupied.

Brilliant! All nations would need to help fund this nation / area which would be run by *Error 404 Not Found*.

It would be run by whatever arrangement the developed nations decide on. They have an obligation to do something to provide accommodation to the world's desperate migrant populations who are being turned away by sovereign nations which don't have to accept them.

These people would be able to find employment as *Error 404 Not Found* in this completely undeveloped (and non-existent) stretch of land.

translation: No such thing as the Marshall Plan could ever have happened. There is no way wealthy nations can ever do anything to help those in desperate circumstances.

Oversight of the tens of billions in international funding would be provided by *Error 404 Not Found*.

The oversight would be provided by the planners established by the consortium of developed nations which undertake to do this. It makes no sense to suggest that developed countries want to see all the asylum-seekers and refugees starve or drown at sea rather than do nothing to save them.

Brilliant idea. So much better than absorbing the refugees across the globe into established populations with work forces and homes (running sewers).

But they're not being so absorbed. Of course they should be absorbed as much as possible. But the many who are not being absorbed, i.e., being turned away, should be provided with some place where they are accepted. The alternative is to say they must starve or be killed making dangerous attempts to settle somewhere illegally.

If sanctuaries as described here are not an acceptable solution, then say the words: "These people must be killed, or forced into a place where they will starve, in order to get them out of our hair."

It's one or the other: Either some kind of sanctuary must be provided, however it can be done, or we are saying they must starve or be killed as a threat to be eliminated.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Brilliant idea, @Lumpenproletariat. But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives. Otherwise you'd just create problems with NIMBYs.

The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Best of all would be Antarctica.

Ah, so many options about creating a "sanctuary" for the currently 89.3 million people worldwide who were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order..

And look how well creating the country of Israel worked out for everyone.

If the Sanctuary solution I'm suggesting should succeed as well as the nation of Israel has succeeded, this is a good solution.

By analogy to that, possibly there's a danger that some inhabitants miles away would see the colony as a threat and would violently attack it. In which case measures would have to be taken to protect the residents, perhaps leading to something military. However, this is not likely.

A major difference from the Israel example is that the migrant sanctuary (or sanctuaries) would be in sparsely-populated areas, where there need be very little displacement of existing inhabitants. Actually there would be no displacement, other than some nearby inhabitants wanting to relocate, in which case they would be compensated. There'd be no need to eject any current inhabitant, but only pay compensation to a few who choose to move away. The developed nations collectively could pay this cost.

 

[bilby]

If the Sanctuary solution I'm suggesting should succeed as well as the nation of Israel has succeeded, this is a good solution.

What, you think it's a good idea to turn the USA into a war zone, with regular terrorist attacks, draconian restrictions on freedom in an attempt to prevent more such attacks, and a government that's dominated by extremist religious nutters?

I mean, yes, you already have the second and third items on the list; But you guys lost the plot when a handful of planes were hijacked and flown into buildings and are still traumatised by it twenty years later. I doubt you really want that stuff happening every few weeks.

Or were you planning to "volunteer" someone else's land for this "solution"?

All the places worth living in are already densely populated. There's a reason why sparsely populated areas are sparsely populated - they are shit places to try to live, like the Sahara Desert; Antarctica; or wherever it is that TSwizzle lives.

 

[Hermit]

needed: Sanctuary

ALL developed countries should come together, combining resources, to establish some kind of sanctuary for all refugees, asylum-seekers -- actually just anyone from anywhere who wants a place, no questions asked. Any human who shows up.

The U.S. should take the lead with this, but it would require all the wealthier nations to cooperate.

Brilliant idea . . . But what spaces in the world do you have in mind? They would have to be places where nobody else lives.

There are plenty of spaces where no one lives.

Of course there are. I cited three examples: The Sahara looks like a suitable area. So would most of Australia's interior. Can you think of why no one lives in relatively unpopulated areas?

As of 2021 there are at least 89.3 million people around the world who have been forced to flee their homes. There are only 14 countries with a greater population. Smaller unpopulated or underpopulated parcels of land are deserted for the same reason: They cannot sustain larger populations.

What you are proposing is a bunch of oversized concentration camps. Last time a proposal somewhat resembling yours was made was in June 1940. As for financing it, nations that cannot find the money to fix the potholes in their own countries are not going to cough up the funds to keep refugees living in even modest but acceptable conditions.

 

[Bomb#20]

Does anyone understand the scope? 300000 people is a small city.

It's the number of people who enter the US from uterine confinement in a single month.

For every one of these cross-border migrants, a dozen totally dependent new citizens with no education or skills of any kind are arriving, without anyone getting upset.

In the first place, an awful of people are upset about the 300,000 entering from uterine confinement each month. You clearly haven't failed to notice this -- the reason it mostly stays under the radar is that those who object typically learn to keep their mouths shut since otherwise they get subjected to a campaign of vilification from people trying to maintain an Overton Window that excludes rational discussion of overpopulation issues -- a campaign in which you are a recurring participant.

And in the second place, for each entrant among the great majority of those 300,000 entering from uterine confinement each month, there's a volunteer stepping forward to agree to provide for his or her needs. Are you personally volunteering to provide for the needs of one of the migrants seeking asylum here, or are you volunteering for someone else to provide that service?

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm a little bit curious about the WSJ's wording. Is it 1.8 million migrants or 1.8 million arrests? Worse case scenario, you're talking about 0.6% increase in the population.

Your math is peculiar. 0.6% sounds like best case scenario. It's 1.8 million arrests; presumably the number of migrants is a lot higher since lots of them avoid arrest.

I think the US can weather that just fine.

"People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."