Are Democrats On The Right Side Of The Immigration Issue?

[mark46]

BOTT0M LINE
I'll give my bottom line first. US policy should be to do all we can try to discourage illegal immigration, asylum seekers, and refugees. US policy should be to secure a path to citizenship for those undocumented in the US who have not been convicted of a violent crime (including DAC folks and temporary refugees). US policy should be to use the immigration process to favor skilled workers (who will likely come more from Asia and Africa).
======================
IMHO, immigration was a huge issue in 2016 and will be again in 2020. In his inaugural (as opposed to his nonsense at rallies), Trump indicated that we need more LEGAL immigrants. He also had a "plan"/"proposal" to change the very nature of immigration. Trump will be able to position himself as opposing illegal immigration through his policies of having a strong border. I think that this is a winning position. [Democrats will oppose; House right wingnuts will oppose].

I believe that the Democrats are getting this issue wrong. Voters do NOT want to accept large numbers of asylum seekers: not from Syria and not from Guatemala. The law needs to be changed. The WWII asylum law was not meant to accept millions of those who are residents of countries with severe political problems. If there is an up and down vote to accept a million or none, the voters would likely vote "none". Trump has said that he'd rather close the border than to accept millions of asylum seekers, and rather than accept illegal immigrants.

Lots needs to be done in the US to reduce the number of illegal immigration. Voters can decide, but this would not be good for Democrats.

MY THOUGHTS
I think that the Democrats should accept compromise legislation that greatly reduces legal immigration, asylum seekers, and refugees for 5 years. At the same time there would be citizenship for DACA folks, and a path for other undocumented not convicted of a violent crime.

And yes, the compromise would accept Trump's ideas to change the priorities for the acceptance of legal immigration. What he doesn't understand is that this would NOT increase the number of white immigrants in place of brown. It would increase immigration from Africa and Asia. I would add that any foreigners who graduates with a degree in a STEM discipline be immediately given a green card and (therefore) a path to citizenship.

And yes, this legislation can include as strong a border control law as Congress can agree to.

THE US NEEDS WORKERS
There are 4 countries in the developed world that project to have population increases in 2050 over now. ALL of them continue to have large numbers of immigrants. Those countries are the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. We need to learn from each other in how to continue this flow of immigrants into our countries. All the rest of the economically developed countries (including Russia and China, and all the EU) have declining populations and increasing problems in securing workers.

 

[Albion]

I respect your thoughtful post. Alas, things seem to be moving even faster in the wrong direction at present.

For example, it was only weeks ago that the leading Democratic spokesmen and presidential contenders said that were against the wall, but with the express caveat that they too do support "border security" (whatever that might mean to them. It is usually left unspecified).

But lately I have noticed that such people are not even saying that much--as easy as it was to throw into any answer about illegal immigration.

Now there seems to be a felt need to say that anyone who wants to come should do so and be allowed to.

 

[hedrick]

For me the major objection to the wall is that it doesn't seem the most cost-effective way of getting border security. Putting a wall in desert just seems odd; surely there are better ways of doing monitoring there. In some areas, sure.

But it's interesting that the current uptick is occurring under Trump. His policies don't seem to be working in reality, though they're working just fine politically. Politically, having a border crisis is great for him.

That doesn't mean I know what will work. However I would think better staffing of immigration courts and border police a higher priority than a wall. I'd also see if there's anything we can do to help the situation in Central American countries.

The current "zero tolerance" policy and threats to prosecute people don't seem to be working. Separating children from parents without keeping track of them seems immoral. This issue is not new with Trump, but zero tolerance has made it worse. But in some ways the most serious objection is that hasn't met its objective of discouraging immigration.

 

[TLK Valentine]

BOTT0M LINE
I'll give my bottom line first. US policy should be to do all we can try to discourage illegal immigration, asylum seekers, and refugees.

No argument regarding illegal immigration, however, let's remember that the US is bound by international laws and treaties regarding asylum seekers and refugees. While we can enact more stringent requirements for who to eventually accept, we cannot simply turn them away at the border.

And before anyone mentions it, I find it highly unlikely that a strategy of "set an impossibly high standard and reject everyone 'on the new criteria'" is going to pass the laugh test, so let's not bother going there.

Seems to me that we need more resources and personnel to process the growing number of refugees and asylum seekers for the short-term, while adjusting our foreign policy for long term solutions regarding these nations to keep people from leaving them in droves in the first place.

US policy should be to secure a path to citizenship for those undocumented in the US who have not been convicted of a crime (including DAC folks and temporary refugees). US policy should be to use the immigration process to favor skilled workers (who will likely come more from Asia and Africa).

Should be, yes -- again, no argument from me. But the Dems will be against the second part of that for "humanitarian" reasons, and the GOP will oppose the first part for... reasons.

======================
IMHO, immigration was a huge issue in 2016 and will be again in 2020. In his inaugural (as opposed to his nonsense at rallies), Trump indicated that we need more LEGAL immigrants. He also had a "plan"/"proposal" to change the very nature of immigration. Trump will be able to position himself as opposing illegal immigration through his policies of having strong border. I think that this is a winning position. [Democrats will oppose; House right wingnuts will oppose].

What Donald said at his inauguration, what he says at his rallies, what he tweets from one night to the next, and what he wants to be his official policy are vastly different things.

Since Donald will not/cannot articulate a clear policy beyond "whatever the people in front of him at that particular moment want to hear," we're left with "Our country is full."

I believe that the Democrats are getting this issue wrong. Voters do NOT want to accept large numbers of asylum seekers: not from Syria and not from Guatemala. The law needs to be changed.

Changed, yes -- but any such change is going to require the GOP to be on board, and they won't dare make a decision (McConnell would block it anyway if they tried) without word from Donald... and as for that, well... see above.

The WWII asylum law was not meant to accept millions of those who are residents of countries with severe political problems. If there is an up and down vote to accept a million or none, the voters would likely vote "none".

Complication #1 -- the WWII asylum law cannot be ignored with a vote; it must be changed via the legislature. Complication #2 -- see above.

Trump has said that he'd rather close the border than to accept millions of asylum seekers, and rather than accept illegal immigrants.

Donald does enjoy his tough talk, but hat he says (this week) and what the law allows him to do don't always match up.

Lots needs to be done in the US to reduce the number of illegal immigration. Voters can decide, but this would not be good for Democrats.

Both parties need to decide what would be good for the United States, in both the short and long terms.

MY THOUGHTS
I think that the Democrats should accept compromise legislation that greatly reduces legal immigration, asylum seekers, and refugees for 5 years. At the same time there would be citizenship for DACA folks, and a path for other undocumented not convicted of a violent crime.

The GOP -- and more importantly, Donald -- would have to accept those terms.

I remain skeptical.

And yes, the compromise would accept Trump's ideas to change the priorities for the acceptance of legal immigration. What he doesn't understand is that this would NOT increase the number of white immigrants in place of brown. It would increase immigration from Africa and Asia. I would add that any foreigners who graduates with a degree in a STEM discipline be immediately given a green card and (therefore) a path to citizenship.

And because he doesn't understand that part of the deal, he'll reject it.

What we therefore need is a bipartisan immigration deal good enough to be veto-proof.

Lotsa luck.

And yes, this legislation can include as strong a border control law as Congress can agree to.

...Which Donald will veto if it doesn't include a wall.

THE US NEEDS WORKERS
There are 4 countries in the developed world that project to have population increases in 2050 over now. ALL of them continue to have large numbers of immigrants. Those countries are the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. We need to learn from each other in how to continue this flow of immigrants into our countries. All the rest of the economically developed countries (including Russia and China, and all the EU) have declining populations and increasing problems in securing workers.

America learn from foreigners? Donald's base won't swallow that, which means Donald will never try to sell it.

 

[wing2000]

As long as the GOP has folks like Stephen Miller calling the the shots, it doesn't matter what the Democrats do.

 

[thecolorsblend]

THE US NEEDS WORKERS

No we don't. Automation is coming whether anybody likes it or not. It makes no sense whatsoever to welcome the entire world into our borders knowing that we very soon won't have enough jobs to go around for our native-born population.

Zero immigration. We're full, thx.

 

[Hank77]

For me the major objection to the wall is that it doesn't seem the most cost-effective way of getting border security. Putting a wall in desert just seems odd; surely there are better ways of doing monitoring there. In some areas, sure.

But it's interesting that the current uptick is occurring under Trump. His policies don't seem to be working in reality, though they're working just fine politically. Politically, having a border crisis is great for him.

That doesn't mean I know what will work. However I would think better staffing of immigration courts and border police a higher priority than a wall. I'd also see if there's anything we can do to help the situation in Central American countries.

The current "zero tolerance" policy and threats to prosecute people don't seem to be working. Separating children from parents without keeping track of them seems immoral. This issue is not new with Trump, but zero tolerance has made it worse. But in some ways the most serious objection is that hasn't met its objective of discouraging immigration.

I don't think it helps when ICE is picking up parents who have lived and worked in this country 20 yrs. and longer and have no criminal record.
Not only does this break up families leaving children without guidance and emotional support from both parents, but it also leaves the wife/husband and children in financial distress. Which means they must turn to the government for help such as Section 8 housing, SNAP, medicaid, etc.
What are we really trying to do, what is the goal?

 

[hedrick]

I don't think it helps when ICE is picking up parents who have lived and worked in this country 20 yrs. and longer and have no criminal record.
Not only does this break up families leaving children without guidance and emotional support from both parents, but it also leaves the wife/husband and children in financial distress. Which means they must turn to the government for help such as Section 8 housing, SNAP, medicaid, etc.
What are we really trying to do, what is the goal?

There are, as often, competing goals. I understand from a sense of fairness, treating people who came in illegally the same as those who did it right is unfair. But the consequences of creating a permanent underclass that can't work legally, can't report problems to police, etc, is probably worse than the damage caused by making people legal at a certain point.

This is such a touchy topic that even liberals have been reluctant to create blanket legalization programs. Instead we get things like deportation policies that say we won't actually deport people unless they are criminals. Maybe that's the best we can do at the moment. But if so, these policies shouldn't be abused by counting traffic offenses as causes for deportation. (How a Father Gets Deported for a Traffic Violation). Note that this example occurred under Obama.

The issues aren't new with Trump. He's just tweaking policies to make them more visible and increase the number of people caught up in them. They're the result of the US not being able to come up with a rational set of goals, and so giving DHS discretion to do whatever it wants with undocumented aliens, with "priority" going to criminals.

 

[hedrick]

I have mixed feelings on automation. Automation has been about to causes major job loss for several hundred years. Maybe this time it's true. We'll see.

 

[inquiring mind]

The native-born labor problem will miraculously disappear when and only when easy-to-get government handouts are limited. I’m sorry, if you have no skills and no education, then you’re not above menial labor jobs. There’s nothing wrong with working your way up, and educating yourself on the way.

 

[LoAmmi]

I have mixed feelings on automation. Automation has been about to causes major job loss for several hundred years. Maybe this time it's true. We'll see.

People have said it for years, but I think we're really on the cusp of something new. My company deals with machine learning and that kind of thing. It's a really different process than what we had before. It's going to be a real concern going forward as computers can control more and more things without human interaction.

 

[Albion]

However I would think better staffing of immigration courts and border police a higher priority than a wall. I'd also see if there's anything we can do to help the situation in Central American countries.

Immigrants send more than $100,000,000,000 annually back to their relatives in their home countries. What could our government give those countries that it is not giving at present, and which would induce the leaders there to stop or seriously slow lthe emigration?

 

[Pommer]

Immigrants send more than $100,000,000,000 annually back to their relatives in their home countries. What could our government give those countries that it is not giving at present, and which would induce the leaders there to stop or seriously slow lthe emigration?

Assuming 12,000,000 undocumented aliens, this works out to $8333.33 per capita. Being “sent homel”.

 

[Albion]

Assuming 12,000,000 undocumented aliens, this works out to $8333.33 per capita. Being “sent homel”.

First, $100 million is a very conservative estimate; many sources put it much higher. In addition, the figure for illegal immigrants now stands at approximately 26,000,000.

 

[Hank77]

First, $100 million is a very conservative estimate; many sources put it much higher. In addition, the figure for illegal immigrants now stands at approximately 26,000,000.

Assuming 12,000,000 undocumented aliens, this works out to $8333.33 per capita. Being “sent homel”.

Not all of that money is being sent by people who are working here illegally. Citizens of the US and others who are legally here with visas send money to family.

 

[mark46]

so, spending $10B or $20Bis well worth it if all the undocumented are on a path to citizenship,

.

...Which Donald will veto if it doesn't include a wall.
.

 

[Albion]

Not all of that money is being sent by people who are working here illegally. Citizens of the US and others who are legally here with visas send money to family.

Yes, it is only illegal residents that we are concerned with.

The visa-holders number about 400,000. Not much when compare to the others.

 

[RDKirk]

No we don't. Automation is coming whether anybody likes it or not. It makes no sense whatsoever to welcome the entire world into our borders knowing that we very soon won't have enough jobs to go around for our native-born population.

Zero immigration. We're full, thx.

That's not what those who continue to hire illegal workers seem to be saying by their hiring practices.

Automation isn't going to pick tomatoes as cheaply as an illegal immigrant any time soon.

The first step is to take away the cheese.

 

[TLK Valentine]

so, spending $10B or $20Bis well worth it if all the undocumented are on a path to citizenship,

$10-$20 billion is the low end of the price tag for Donald's wall... and the Dems would be against it even if they thought it would be effective. Since they don't, I don't expect them to cave.

On the flip side, I don't see Donald offering a path to citizenship for those people -- his base would never stand for it.

 

[Pommer]

First, $100 million is a very conservative estimate; many sources put it much higher. In addition, the figure for illegal immigrants now stands at approximately 26,000,000.

Which is it, $100 million or 100,000,000,000?