Jump to content
Ten oz

U.S. Immigration

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just because these people you know and love aren’t actively lynching people doesn’t mean what they’re saying, doing, and supporting isn’t racist. 

We can, should, and must be better. 

And just because what they say, do, and support can be vaguely aligned with racists doesn't mean they support racism.

Again, I've made my point, and their point, clear. They don't think we should deport legal immigrants and they've actively said that and complained about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’re arriving rapidly to a point in our society wherein if you’re not actively pushing back against racist alignments then you’re complicit in letting it grow and strengthen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, iNow said:

We’re arriving rapidly to a point in our society wherein if you’re not actively pushing back against racist alignments then you’re complicit in letting it grow and strengthen. 

I refuse to accept the ideology that you're either for or against us.

One or the other.

Good or bad.

Us versus them.

 

The United States has been fractured, and it's more divided than ever before. In part, because of the belief that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be everything you disagree with. Politics are far more dynamic than only two sides.

And I've made my point clear.

I have no problem with legal immigration. I'd also like to see it increase, and made easier for people to immigrate.

Yet, because I don't agree with you on everything, you're suggesting I'm complicit in letting racism grow and strengthen.

I shouldn't have to actively denounce racism everytime I say something that puts me on a different side than yours. I even agree with you on many major points including the fact that immigration is a benefit to our economy. But I still say that illegal immigration is illegal. And while I don't think we should take a fire and fury stance on them, I think we should prioritize helping legal immigrants.

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The United States has been fractured, and it's more divided than ever before.

Well, we did have a civil war which literally killed more US citizens than all other wars combined because some people thought they should be allowed to own other people as property while others decided, nope... that’s unacceptable, but okay. 

43 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I still say that illegal immigration is illegal.

Yeah, if only we could setup our system in such a way that our representatives could actually write and improve laws based on the will of the people. If only we could decide what’s appropriate to be legal and illegal. Oh, wait. We did, except they’re choosing to shut the whole thing down instead of actually doing the job we elected them to do. 

If only what were legal actually made sense and mapped on to the actual reality in which we find ourselves. If only....

I've done illegal things. Pretty sure everyone here has. Let’s be honest, I don’t need a confession, but likely, you have, too.

We need to fight for more than just what is legal. We need to fight for what is right. 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But I still say that illegal immigration is illegal.

This is a relatively new concept (about 100 years old, unless you're of Chinese descent. Then it's more like 150 years old) , and has racist origins and overtones (see e.g. Chinese exclusion act). It's white people setting up immigration laws to prefer white immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I have no problem with legal immigration. I'd also like to see it increase, and made easier for people to immigrate.

You have no problem with legal immigration yet haven't bothered to render post addressing the legal immigrants from El Salvador and Haiti Republicans want to deport. From this thread OP:

" In 2018 the nature of debate has greatly changed. Those who came here legally as refugees from Haiti and El Salvador are being asked to leave. The military has suspended the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program which enabled immigrants to legally become citizens in trade for service. The Presidents travel ban seeks to limit the ability of targeted Muslim groups to legally travel to the U.S. It appears that Republicans do not care whether immigrants are legal or illegal anymore. The goal simply seems to be less immigration period."

You keep repeating that illegal immigration illegal while ignoring what is actually happening and being discussed. Two hundred thousand immigrants from El Salvador in 2001 and nearly 60,000 immigrants from Haiti in 2010 came to the U.S. LEGALLY and Republicans what then gone. Those are the shithole countries Trump referenced.  Additionally the administration has suspended programs like MAVNI which enable immigrants to LEGALLY become citizens and has sought to limit the amount of LEGAL immigration allowed into the country overall. We all understand that your think illegal immigration is illegal; we get it. Can we discuss LEGAL immigration now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness to Raider, the context of this exchange was DACA, which was referenced repeatedly in the last several posts. Those kids, despite being sympathetic, are presently here without paperwork (i.e. illegal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

But I still say that illegal immigration is illegal.

An arbitrary point that justifies an immoral position, much like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, iNow said:

In fairness to Raider, the context of this exchange was DACA, which was referenced repeatedly in the last several posts. Those kids, despite being sympathetic, are presently here without paperwork (i.e. illegal).

To receive DACA protection all had to register with Immigration services. Many local govt have changed their laws to make them legal. At this point they are documented and depending on where they're living legal within their communities. Ultimately this discussing is about what the law should be and not what is was 10yrs ago. Democrats and Republicans are debating about what the law will be and for Raider to just continue stating that illegal means illegal is completely useless to that conversation. The issue surround DACA is very similar to the issue surrounding Marijuana. Local govts all over the country have already passed legislation allowing it and the federal govt took a no enforcement approach. Ignoring those realities and just stating Marijuana is illegal and illegal means illegal is a total non-starter at this point. What the law should be and is now is what matters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is pretty much exactly what I said in my own reply. It’s strange that you replied to me as if I am in any way unclear on that, but let’s move forward. We seem to agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigration will always be needed, as we don't reproduce enough to even replace our population.
As a result, the average age is rising. We can either keep working into our 70s, or bring in young people from other countries, to work, pay taxes, and provide pensions for us old geezers ( no, I'm still working and not near retirement ).

That being said, there are smart ways, and stupid ways of handling immigration.
A smart way is consistent checks on all immigrants, not just specific countries, as undesirables can come from anywhere.
a stupid way, is the revision of the rules according to different administrations as is happening now in the US. If the rules that determine immigration/admission are changed, there cannot be a change to the legality of your previous immigration status.
You cannot change a law and retroactively prosecute people for previously legal things that they may have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno. A wall seems pretty smart to me, especially one that costs $20 billion. It’s not like people would ever invent ladders or anything.

That’s the smart immigration we’re right now battling over in the US (that and whether or not families can be reunited... husbands and wives, mothers and children, etc... GOP wants to end that, too, amd use fancy words like “chain migration” to make it sound scary and bad).

Were a very long way away from “smart” in this discussion right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iNow said:

Which is pretty much exactly what I said in my own reply. It’s strange that you replied to me as if I am in any way unclear on that, but let’s move forward. We seem to agree. 

We do agree. I was just elaborating in my own words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You have no problem with legal immigration yet haven't bothered to render post addressing the legal immigrants from El Salvador and Haiti Republicans want to deport. From this thread OP:

" In 2018 the nature of debate has greatly changed. Those who came here legally as refugees from Haiti and El Salvador are being asked to leave. The military has suspended the Military Accessions Vital to National Interest (MAVNI) program which enabled immigrants to legally become citizens in trade for service. The Presidents travel ban seeks to limit the ability of targeted Muslim groups to legally travel to the U.S. It appears that Republicans do not care whether immigrants are legal or illegal anymore. The goal simply seems to be less immigration period."

You keep repeating that illegal immigration illegal while ignoring what is actually happening and being discussed. Two hundred thousand immigrants from El Salvador in 2001 and nearly 60,000 immigrants from Haiti in 2010 came to the U.S. LEGALLY and Republicans what then gone. Those are the shithole countries Trump referenced.  Additionally the administration has suspended programs like MAVNI which enable immigrants to LEGALLY become citizens and has sought to limit the amount of LEGAL immigration allowed into the country overall. We all understand that your think illegal immigration is illegal; we get it. Can we discuss LEGAL immigration now?

I think the whole idea of deporting them is ridiculous and is not what I support.

Additionally, from what I can gather from Republicans who live around me, they think it's ridiculous too.

I have addressed this already. I am not dodging anything.

One more time.

I find the idea of deporting legal immigrants ridiculous, stupid, and idiotic.

Now stop suggesting that I want to deport legal immigrants.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

An arbitrary point that justifies an immoral position, much like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog. 

What immoral position?

Care to elaborate on how evil I am?

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

An arbitrary point that justifies an immoral position, much like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog. 

Yes.

And I think we should line up all the illegal immigrants and march them out of the country at gunpoint.

That's the type of immoral position I hold.

I never said anything like "I don't think we should take a fire and fury standpoint on them. But I think we should prioritize legal immigrants first."

That's totally not what I said. I totally don't believe we should help illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants, but prioritize legal immigrants and discourage illegal immigrants.

Because that'd be another totally immoral position.

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

I think the whole idea of deporting them is ridiculous and is not what I support.

Additionally, from what I can gather from Republicans who live around me, they think it's ridiculous too.

I have addressed this already. I am not dodging anything.

One more time.

I find the idea of deporting legal immigrants ridiculous, stupid, and idiotic.

Now stop suggesting that I want to deport legal immigrants.

Awesome. Do you want policy regarding DACA changed so those 800,000 will be deported or do you want current policy to continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

What immoral position?

Care to elaborate on how evil I am?

 

I haven't said your evil, but anyone who thinks their status (accidental birth privilege) is better than others is certainly selfish, and I for one think that's immoral.

Never forget to thank your lucky stars to be born in your country/family. 

You're a legal immigrant and no one gave your predecessors permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, iNow said:

I dunno. A wall seems pretty smart to me, especially one that costs $20 billion.

And this will give some of those two-men energy companies who lost their multi-million PREPA contracts a chance to apply their expertise to wall building. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has been hinting all along how "complex" (aka "expensive") the wall will be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2018 at 6:51 PM, iNow said:

Just because these people you know and love aren’t actively lynching people doesn’t mean what they’re saying, doing, and supporting isn’t racist. 

We can, should, and must be better. 

Agreed.  Is it really that hard to do a gut check on opinions and attitudes?  Sometimes you find out you are not such a fine person after all.  That causes personal growth.

On 1/20/2018 at 7:12 PM, iNow said:

We’re arriving rapidly to a point in our society wherein if you’re not actively pushing back against racist alignments then you’re complicit in letting it grow and strengthen. 

Agreed here  as well, but after that gut check one might conclude that there is nothing immoral with their position.   We are talking about illegal immigration here.  We live in a nation of laws. That is how our society functions. Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to is a dangerous path.

Why should we pick and choose?  Last time I checked we have a representative government that can write new law any time it wants.  It can even change the constitution.  The only question is why can't congress make a deal?  Who likes illegal immigration and wants it to continue?  By the way I don't think that is just Democrats.

I have no problem with legal immigration.  In fact I think legal immigration should be increased particularly from Mexico.  I know and am friends with lots of US citizens originally from Mexico or second generation.  I believe they assimilate much faster than other cultures. My favorite part is that they like fast cars and motorcycles. 

I'll conclude with a little tale from my career.  As part of my career, I worked as a wireless base station design engineer.  When we released new product designs, the design engineers were temporarily reassigned as installation troubleshooting and deployed to the field to get the network deployed and functioning quickly.  It turns out that a lot of major freeways, highways, and arterials run through very impoverished neighborhoods.  These roads have high wireless traffic so they need more base station equipment installed along them  In fact base stations are frequently installed on the roofs US housing project buildings.  I have been in many of these buildings.  They are not a fun place to visit.  These are multi-story buildings. Never did I find a functioning elevator.  All equipment had to be carried up the stairwells.  Those stairwells were primarily used as latrines, drug shooting galleries and surprisingly as playgrounds for small children.  Some were in diapers.  Needle tipped syringes were everywhere.  While I can't be certain,  I believe every person I saw in those US government projects were US citizens.

Why are we not focused on helping those US citizens?  People our own nation ground into poverty.  Charity begins at home in my book.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why should we pick and choose?  Last time I checked we have a representative government that can write new law any time it wants.  It can even change the constitution.  The only question is why can't congress make a deal?  Who likes illegal immigration and wants it to continue?

Indeed, and that's just it. The support for things like DACA, CHIP, and improved legal immigration is through the roof. It keeps getting stymied by those who have vested interests or personal biases, those who want fewer immigrants and more white people.

There is a base of voters that some parties refuse to push back against it (in the way Bob Dole did at the GOP convention in  '96). The Bob Doles of the world are fewer and farther between today. Today, it's the most extreme who seem to wield the most power.

9 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why are we not focused on helping those US citizens?  People our own nation ground into poverty.  Charity begins at home in my book.

We can do both in parallel. Walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time is not beyond the abilities of our congress (well, at least, it shouldn't be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2018 at 4:36 AM, swansont said:

This is a relatively new concept (about 100 years old, unless you're of Chinese descent. Then it's more like 150 years old) , and has racist origins and overtones (see e.g. Chinese exclusion act). It's white people setting up immigration laws to prefer white immigrants.

And it even went as far as attempting to exclude anyone if they were seen as too "different".  There was a time when some people tried to make the claim that Finns weren't "white" but actually Asian and should not be allowed into the country under the immigration laws of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a nice article about racism underlying the history of American immigration policies (Op-Ed).

 

Quote

The racialization of United States immigration law took off in the decades following the Civil War. Beginning with the Chinese, migrants from Asia were the early targets; beginning in 1917, an “Asiatic Barred Zone” (with latitude and longitude markers laid out clearly in the legislative code) kept out migrants from an imaginary mega-region that stretched from contemporary Turkey to Papua New Guinea.

In the aftermath of World War I, a new “national origins” quota system sought to turn back the American demographic clock, with European immigrants admitted in proportion to the presence of their “nationality” in the American population based on earlier censuses. It was “Make America Great Again” for a eugenic age. Hitler was a fan. America appeared to be “a young, racially select people,” he wrote admiringly in 1928, by “making an immigrant’s ability to set foot on American soil dependent on specific racial requirements,” among other factors.

[...] the presumption that the United States was or should be a white fortress in a mostly colored world was backstopped by science, religion, scholarship and popular culture. American law did not allow Asians to obtain citizenship until 1952.

Under the pressure of anti-racist and immigrant rights pressure, the system fell in 1965 with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act, which foregrounded family reunification, refugee admissions and the entry of the highly skilled and educated. But racism persisted in both policy enforcement and popular attitudes.

[...]

The prevailing questions we’re conditioned to ask about immigrants have all been deeply shaped by histories of racial restriction. Can “we” assimilate and civilize “them”? Will “they” — despite their negative features and the risks they pose — make “us” wealthier and more powerful? Will “they” sap “our” resources?

 

An important thing to point out is that illegal immigration is for some conflated with legal immigration (not so much on this site, luckily). However, there is a sizable part of the population (especially among Trump voters) that oppose immigration of any sorts from an ethnocentric viewpoint. Study groups have looked at vote shares in 2012 vs 2016 they found e.g. increased negative attitudes for likely GOP voters against immigration, black people and Muslims, but virtually no change on economic or social issues.

A big issue is that the administration seems to push that particular button (with the Muslim ban and the rhetoric surrounding legal immigration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CharonY said:

An important thing to point out is that illegal immigration is for some conflated with legal immigration (not so much on this site, luckily)

Yes, if often starts with an anti illegal immigration and then evolves into an anti any immigration position. We are seeing it play out in real time as the Trump administration is both seeking to deport groups here legally and lower the number of immigrant we allow in at all. This isn't new. One only needs to educate themselves on things like Mexican Repatriation or Herbert Hoovers Nationality quotas to understand the long history of racism and the impact it still has on the discussion. 

"The Mexican Repatriation was a mass deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States between 1929 and 1936. Estimates of how many were repatriated range from 500,000 to 2,000,000,of whom perhaps 60% were US citizens by birth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

 

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Whereas it is provided in the Act of Congress approved May 26, 1924, entitled "An Act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States, and for other purposes," as amended by the Joint Resolution of March 4, 1927, entitled "Joint Resolution to amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of Section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended," and the Joint Resolution of March 31, 1928, entitled "Joint Resolution to amend subdivisions (b) and (e) of Section 11 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended," that--

"The annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1929, and for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 as the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 having that national origin (ascertained as hereinafter provided in this section) bears to the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100." Sec. 11(b).

"For the purpose of subdivision (b) national origin shall be ascertained by determining as nearly as may be, in respect of each geographical area which under section 12 is to be treated as a separate country (except the geographical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4) the number of inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 whose origin by birth or ancestry is attributable to such geographical area. Such determination shall not be made by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular individuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigration and emigration, together with rates of increase of population as shown by successive decennial United States censuses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable." Sec. 11(c).

"For the purpose of subdivisions (b) and (c) the term 'inhabitants in continental United States in 1920' does not include (1) immigrants from the geographical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4 or their descendants, (2) aliens ineligible to citizenship or their descendants, (3) the descendants of slave immigrants, or (4) the descendants of American aborigines." Sec. 11(d).

"The determination provided for in subdivision (c) of this section shall be made by the 'Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly. In making such determination such officials may call for information and expert assistance from the Bureau of the Census. Such officials shall, jointly, report to the President the quota of each nationality, determined as provided in subdivision (b), and the President shall proclaim and make known the quotas so reported. Such proclamation shall be made on or before April 1, 1929. If the proclamation is not made on or before such date, quotas proclaimed therein shall not be in effect for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of 90 days after the date of the proclamation. After the making of a proclamation under this subdivision the quotas proclaimed therein shall continue with the same effect as if specifically stated herein, and shall be final and conclusive for every purpose except (1) in so far as it is made to appear to the satisfaction of such officials and proclaimed by the President, that an error of fact has occurred in such determination or in such proclamation, or (2) in the case provided for in subdivision (c) of Section 12. If for any reason quotas proclaimed under this subdivision are not in effect for any fiscal year, quotas for such year shall be determined under subdivision (a) of this section." Sec. 11(e).

And Whereas the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor have reported to the President that pursuant to the duty imposed and the authority conferred upon them in and by the Act approved May 26, 1924, they jointly have made the determination required by said Act and fixed the quota of each respective nationality in accordance therewith to be as hereinafter set forth;

Now, Therefore, I, Herbert Hoover, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the power in me vested by the aforesaid Act of Congress, do hereby proclaim and make known that the annual quota of each nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1929, and for each fiscal year thereafter, has been determined in accordance with the law to be, and shall be, as follows:

NATIONAL ORIGIN IMMIGRATION QUOTAS

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21838

 

The quotas are listed on the link. They include things like only 100 people from allowed from China but 65,000 allowed from England. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed, and that's just it. The support for things like DACA, CHIP, and improved legal immigration is through the roof. It keeps getting stymied by those who have vested interests or personal biases, those who want fewer immigrants and more white people.

You just have to make this about race, but their is no need to.  I often read on this forum that the US doesn't need to be the world's police force, but somehow we are supposed to be the world's welfare office.  Why?  Why should US citizens pay the price of the crimes committed by the parents of DACA children?  Why doesn't Mexico accept the responsibility for it's child citizens?

20 hours ago, iNow said:

We can do both in parallel...

Well when you believe you can't run out of other people's money everything can be done in parallel.  So when does utopia begin?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why should US citizens pay the price of the crimes committed by the parents of DACA children? 

What price are we (U.S. Citizens) paying by letting people raised and educated in the U.S. stay in the U.S.?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

  Why should US citizens pay the price of the crimes committed by the parents of DACA children? 

 

Because we were all children once and not one of us chose where we were born or who our parents are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.