• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No More Catch-and-Release of Immigrants?

HowardBThiname said:
It is mandatory everywhere for federal contractors, and many states have also adopted it for other employers. It's not too big of an issue in states that don't see a lot of illegals, though.

States like California have banned the use of e-Verify, and, of course, that's idiotic -- but, we are talking about California after all.
Click to expand...


Yes they did.

At the behest of the chamber of commerce and the farmers lobby.

Because it was bad for business.

New California law bars E-Verify requirement for businesses - latimes

How many times do you have to be proven wrong on this?

Business like's cheap labor and scapegoats.

And that is why nothing effective is done.
 
HowardBThiname said:
Actually, the vast majority of people will follow the law, studies have shown that. That's why most people oppose illegals -- they aren't abiding by the law.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing any support for this position.

Do you have a link or did you just state your opinion?
 
HowardBThiname said:
Be honest, HSBC (a European-owned bank) didn't launder money -- cartel members did through that bank.

And yes, those cartel members are imprisoned when caught. HSBC has changed its policies to prevent that in the future.
Click to expand...

HSBC knew.

So it was conspiracy under federal law.

They only changed because they got caught.

If you or I were caught conspiring to launder drug money wed go to jail, not just lose a couple months disposable income.

Try again.
 
What if...? said:
Yes they did.

At the behest of the chamber of commerce and the farmers lobby.

Because it was bad for business.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Not at the "behest of the chamber of commerce and the farmers lobby."

Rather, the bill banning e-Verify was introduced by a democrat. Keep in mind that e-verify is a conservative initiative.

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), who introduced the bill, said he felt that mandatory E-Verify was an unnecessary burden on businesses.

“It was costly, time-consuming. It’s unfair for big businesses and definitely for small businesses,” he said. “Why make a flawed system mandatory?”
Click to expand...
https://www.tlnt.com/new-california-law-bans-employer-use-of-e-verify-immigration-system/
How many times do you have to be proven wrong on this?
Click to expand...

So far, you're the one who's been proven wrong. Multiple times.

Business like's cheap labor and scapegoats.

And that is why nothing effective is done.
Click to expand...

As long as we have democrats to keep introducing laws to undermine the initiative, we'll have a problem.
 
What if...? said:
I'm not seeing any support for this position.

Do you have a link or did you just state your opinion?
Click to expand...

The latest Harvard Study supports it.

According to the poll, 65% of voters would support a DACA deal that secures the Southern border, ends Chain Migration, and eliminates the Visa Lottery. A majority of voters from nearly every demographic group would support the deal, including 68% of Hispanic voters, 64% of African American voters, 64% of Democratic voters, 67% of all independent voters, 63% of liberal voters, and 68% of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election cycle.

The poll also reveals that 60 percent of voters oppose giving preference to parents who illegally brought their children to the U.S. The Durbin-Graham no-strings DACA amnesty offered in the Senate would give amnesty to the parents.

The poll found that 81% of voters want to reduce legal immigration from its current level of more than 1 million per year, and 63% want it cut by at least half.
Click to expand...

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/har...ll-voters-support-reducing-immigration-levels
 
HowardBThiname said:
Incorrect. Not at the "behest of the chamber of commerce and the farmers lobby."

Rather, the bill banning e-Verify was introduced by a democrat. Keep in mind that e-verify is a conservative initiative.


https://www.tlnt.com/new-california-law-bans-employer-use-of-e-verify-immigration-system/


So far, you're the one who's been proven wrong. Multiple times.



As long as we have democrats to keep introducing laws to undermine the initiative, we'll have a problem.
Click to expand...

OK. Had to do a lot of reading.

If you insist I can provide the links but only if you're going to read them.

E verify is being used as a bargaining chip by both sides.

And both sides have reservations about it.

Agriculture fears it and requires from the congresspeople they sponsor a new work visa program. Which sounds Luke slavery with extra steps.

California dems are doing it because they're butting heads with the feds over unfunded mandates.

But the ag lobby was against it too. And that's a conservative constituency.

Far right groups oppose it because of concerns about national IDs and what have you.

But Chris Hayes of MSNBC asked trump about it and obviously supports it.

So it isn't just dems. Its republicans too.

Dems want amnesty for those who are here before they will go for it.

Republicans want their laundry list of get tough on immigrants before they for for it.

And as to law abiding. Conservative ag folks have been breaking the law since 1986. 46% of farm workers are illegal.

The fact that they are expecting a new foreign worker visa program is proof that they know they've been breaking the law.

There's way too much nudge nudge wink wink BS going on on the subject from both sides.
 
What if...? said:
OK. Had to do a lot of reading.

If you insist I can provide the links but only if you're going to read them.

E verify is being used as a bargaining chip by both sides.

And both sides have reservations about it.

Agriculture fears it and requires from the congresspeople they sponsor a new work visa program. Which sounds Luke slavery with extra steps.

California dems are doing it because they're butting heads with the feds over unfunded mandates.

But the ag lobby was against it too. And that's a conservative constituency.

Far right groups oppose it because of concerns about national IDs and what have you.

But Chris Hayes of MSNBC asked trump about it and obviously supports it.

So it isn't just dems. Its republicans too.

Dems want amnesty for those who are here before they will go for it.

Republicans want their laundry list of get tough on immigrants before they for for it.

And as to law abiding. Conservative ag folks have been breaking the law since 1986. 46% of farm workers are illegal.

The fact that they are expecting a new foreign worker visa program is proof that they know they've been breaking the law.

There's way too much nudge nudge wink wink BS going on on the subject from both sides.
Click to expand...

I know that -- you see -- I wasn't the one who brought up the fact that conservatives were undermining measures in order to allow illegals to keep working here. I know there are two sides, I was just trying to show you the flip side of the coin you were tossing.

Going after the employers will only work to a small extent, and, frankly it puts the onus on businesses when the true onus should be on the federal government. More effective ways would be beef-up border security, end the catch-and-release program (which is what we're discussing) and run a multi-country campaign to educate would-be migrants into realizing how slim their chances of crossing the border are. But, when the government adopts anti-illegal hiring practices and then entire states ban the use of it, we have a problem. Stopping illegals at the border is much better than catching and deporting them once they're already here.
 
holbritter said:
When the catch-and-release was ended last time, it reduced ILLEGAL immigration quite a bit, so I think it will work again. I'm for it. (sorry for caps, but I wanted to make sure I'm not accused of hating immigrants)
Click to expand...

It is all about legal vs illegal, and the loopholes people are jumping through, just to wine and cry and protest when it bites them in the ass later on.
Now we have to address it in Congress to make it stick. Hopefully our citizen will see the light and vote for those who are willing to uphold our laws and make it happen.
Next we must address the abuse of the 14th A.
 
notquiteright said:
Actually it is more smoke and puffery than any real action. If you read past the bumper sticker headline Trump has merely asked for the practice to be ended 'soon' and for reports on how it can be ended... :roll:

Far more hat than cattle... :peace
Click to expand...

Love illegals and hate Trump and his supporters. Ah yes, the humanity. May be what you call a cattle call is a good step in the right direction.
Why don't we ask all our legal immigrants how they feel? They waited in line, jumped through hoops, paid their dues, and for what?
 
HowardBThiname said:
I know that -- you see -- I wasn't the one who brought up the fact that conservatives were undermining measures in order to allow illegals to keep working here. I know there are two sides, I was just trying to show you the flip side of the coin you were tossing.

Going after the employers will only work to a small extent, and, frankly it puts the onus on businesses when the true onus should be on the federal government. More effective ways would be beef-up border security, end the catch-and-release program (which is what we're discussing) and run a multi-country campaign to educate would-be migrants into realizing how slim their chances of crossing the border are. But, when the government adopts anti-illegal hiring practices and then entire states ban the use of it, we have a problem. Stopping illegals at the border is much better than catching and deporting them once they're already here.
Click to expand...

How do you get to the statement that going after the employers would only help to a small extent?

I see that in anti-e verify messages.

But a nice wide swath of sources left right and middle claimed it would be the most effective solution in my reading yesterday.

The fact that both sides resist at the political level was reason for some scorn in those articles.
 
What if...? said:
How do you get to the statement that going after the employers would only help to a small extent?
Click to expand...

Because of attitudes such as those in California that ban usage of the system, and because of the loopholes with the e-Verify system. Employers are either not permitted to use the system, or they're fooled and the illegal slips in under the radar. Then there's the day-workers (many of whom are illegal) who wait at designated corners in some communities (Reno, NV is one) for someone, be it a homeowner or someone else, who needs some labor for just a day -- they pick up the illegals and drop them back off -- paying them in cash. We have no laws that don't permit homeowners to do that, and fat chance, we'd ever get a law like that passed. We've seen the problems, we know going after the employers (which we do) isn't fruitful. The best way to stop the nonsense where it originates -- at the border. Then, all the other little issues fade away.

I see that in anti-e verify messages.

But a nice wide swath of sources left right and middle claimed it would be the most effective solution in my reading yesterday.

The fact that both sides resist at the political level was reason for some scorn in those articles.
Click to expand...

I can see why the resistance is there. The e-verify program is like trying to catch the devilish diseases that escape once Pandora's Box is opened. The better option is to just keep the box closed.
 
danielpalos said:
it should be, catch, issue a federal id. and levy a fee or a fine, then release.
Click to expand...

That plan is ridiculous. Reward then with a federal ID for breaking our laws. Dumb.
 
As part of the memo, Trump asked Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to produce a list of military facilities that could be used to detain illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Are we one hundred percent sure that privately owned detention facilities won't be lining up for this valuable money-making opportunity?
 
What if...? said:
Yes they did.

At the behest of the chamber of commerce and the farmers lobby.

Because it was bad for business.

New California law bars E-Verify requirement for businesses - latimes

How many times do you have to be proven wrong on this?

Business like's cheap labor and scapegoats.

And that is why nothing effective is done.
Click to expand...

Big Ag and commerce love them so much that once upon a time the big growers actually convinced Congress to send a fleet of buses down INTO Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS for the picking seasons.

And then suddenly just a handful of years later, these SAME people were rounded up in Operation Wetback, and dumped off in the middle of the Mexican deserts with no food or water, creating a massive humanitarian crisis. But we won't look at that stunning display of hypocrisy, will we?
That's precisely WHY few if any have respect for our immigration policies.
They're as fickle and changing as the wind, and utterly beholden to the whims of the big industrial and agricultural barons in this country, and any pretense that this has anything to do with national security or any other values statement is pure theater.

I assure you that once produce prices begin to skyrocket, and once cheap labor becomes too expensive, Trump and his supporters will quietly seek whatever loopholes they can muster to poke holes in the so called "wall" and our so called "airtight immigration policies".
And Trump supporters, who are also every bit as fickle as he is, will pirouette and pivot once again, as they always do.
As always, they will even lie outright to defend such pivoting, because that is what HE does, therefore that is what THEY do.

So, I don't care if this thread mushrooms to some record setting number of pages, because no matter how much shrieking, yelling, wailing and squawking his supporters engage in, none of that changes this eternal truth:

America NEEDS the cheap labor offered by illegal immigrants, and will DO ANYTHING to get it.

If that was not the case, crops wouldn't be rotting in the fields right now, and costs in several key industries that use cheap illegal immigrant labor (mostly construction, hospitality and agriculture) wouldn't be on the rise.

One other side effect:
Thirteen billion dollars was paid into the Social Security Trust Fund in 2010, and similar amounts were paid in the years prior and after as well.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf

Of course, losing that extra money provides extra ammo to the Right Wing that advocates for abolishing Social Security altogether anyway.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Big Ag and commerce love them so much that once upon a time the big growers actually convinced Congress to send a fleet of buses down INTO Mexico to RECRUIT BRACEROS for the picking seasons.

And then suddenly just a handful of years later, these SAME people were rounded up in Operation Wetback, and dumped off in the middle of the Mexican deserts with no food or water, creating a massive humanitarian crisis. But we won't look at that stunning display of hypocrisy, will we?
That's precisely WHY few if any have respect for our immigration policies.
They're as fickle and changing as the wind, and utterly beholden to the whims of the big industrial and agricultural barons in this country, and any pretense that this has anything to do with national security or any other values statement is pure theater.

I assure you that once produce prices begin to skyrocket, and once cheap labor becomes too expensive, Trump and his supporters will quietly seek whatever loopholes they can muster to poke holes in the so called "wall" and our so called "airtight immigration policies".
And Trump supporters, who are also every bit as fickle as he is, will pirouette and pivot once again, as they always do.
As always, they will even lie outright to defend such pivoting, because that is what HE does, therefore that is what THEY do.

So, I don't care if this thread mushrooms to some record setting number of pages, because no matter how much shrieking, yelling, wailing and squawking his supporters engage in, none of that changes this eternal truth:

America NEEDS the cheap labor offered by illegal immigrants, and will DO ANYTHING to get it.

If that was not the case, crops wouldn't be rotting in the fields right now, and costs in several key industries that use cheap illegal immigrant labor (mostly construction, hospitality and agriculture) wouldn't be on the rise.

One other side effect:
Thirteen billion dollars was paid into the Social Security Trust Fund in 2010, and similar amounts were paid in the years prior and after as well.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf

Of course, losing that extra money provides extra ammo to the Right Wing that advocates for abolishing Social Security altogether anyway.
Click to expand...

Cheap labor AND convenient scapegoats.

I almost want them to shut it all down.

Because then they'd have to explain why everybody's wages didn't go up but prices did.

Now they convert wages into profits at every opportunity and if anybody squawks they just point to the illegals and say "Its all their fault! THEY took your jobs!"

Iva always been amused by this behaivior:

If a brown person comes here and does a job nobody here wants, they are criminal scum who took an Americans job.

If a business gives your job to a brown person somewhere else they are a savvy businessman.

Never have been able to figure out how that works.

Because business gives away jobs we do want, and at least the illegals pay into the treasury and spend money into our economy.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually Ellis Island was anything BUT welcoming. Many that came to Ellis Island were often kept in cramped quarters and subjected to "medical" tests to make sure they were free of...I guess the right word now a days would be "impurities". Even those that could not see properly could get rejected and sent back on the same ship they came in on. (unless if course they were rich). Women were not allowed to enter the country unless accompanied by a male that would "take responsibility of them" and if they weren't accompanied and could not get someone that was already in the US and established to vouch and take "custody" of them then they'd too be sent back.

I would most definitely not want anyone treated today as they were treated back when Ellis Island was open.
Click to expand...


My grandmother's baby sister came from Poland after the war,m during which she worked as slave labor for the Naxi's. (Being Polish, we are 'resist, resist, resist and then resist - they would fail to tie off the buttons on the pants so their plants would fall down while fighting.

Sher never talked about any of it with the kids around unless it was to talk about how her faith kept her alive. But, I did hear her tell a friend that Ellis wasn't much different than the slave camps.

What went unsaid is that she was a very beautiful young woman so we will leave the details to other's imaginations.
 
HowardBThiname said:
This could actually go a long way toward keeping illegals out of our nation, if true.

The Catch-and-release program has been a thorn in our side. Immigrants are apprehended - they claim they're seeking asylum and given a court date to make a determination, but then they are released, pending that court date. Very few ever show up for their court dates.

This would end that.

What do you think? .



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-and-release-immigration-policy-idUSKCN1HD31Q
Click to expand...
Darn
There goes my cheap lawn care
 
What if...? said:
Cheap labor AND convenient scapegoats.

I almost want them to shut it all down.

Because then they'd have to explain why everybody's wages didn't go up but prices did.

Now they convert wages into profits at every opportunity and if anybody squawks they just point to the illegals and say "Its all their fault! THEY took your jobs!"

Iva always been amused by this behaivior:

If a brown person comes here and does a job nobody here wants, they are criminal scum who took an Americans job.

If a business gives your job to a brown person somewhere else they are a savvy businessman.

Never have been able to figure out how that works.

Because business gives away jobs we do want, and at least the illegals pay into the treasury and spend money into our economy.
Click to expand...

Cognitive Dissonance Award OF THE CENTURY, no doubt.

tumblr_muki4jl4Pd1spd598o1_400.gif
 
Yes, we are experiencing a net outflow of illegal, undocumented workers from America back to Mexico

Yes, we are experiencing a net outflow of illegal, undocumented workers from America back to Mexico | PolitiFact Wisconsin

U.S. and Mexican government data analyzed by the Pew Research Center shows the immigration trend reversed in the last decade.

The estimated number of Mexicans in the United States illegally rose steadily for many years, from 2.9 million in 1995 to a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. But the number began dropping in 2008 and has fallen more since, reaching 5.8 million in 2014, the latest year for which Pew analyzed data.

If the number is falling, that means more illegal Mexican immigrants are leaving the United States than entering it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom