Are Folks Making America Hate Again?

[doubtingmerle]

Not for politically cooperative business owners. Their HR departments handle all the details

This was in response to a long paragraph:

Employers cannot legally hire someone without a valid TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) or SSN (Social Security Number), which are used to report payroll taxes. A person here illegally typically does not have a valid SSN or TIN—or if they present one fraudulently, it can often be traced back to a legitimate holder or flagged. Without proper documentation, the only way an employer could pay an undocumented worker is "under the table," avoiding payroll taxes — which is illegal. Any sizable company engaging in widespread under-the-table employment would put itself in serious legal jeopardy, facing civil fines and potential criminal penalties.​

And it is not at all clear to me what you are saying these companies can do and whether it is legal to do what they do. For instance, can they hire people without taking out payroll taxes? Its hard to understand what you are saying when you respond with a cyrptic "not".

Not companies with strong unions, no.

This is in response to, "So no, I don't think companies like General Motors are hiring large numbers of undocumented immigrants and bypassing tax laws."

There are so many negatives here, it is hard to track it all. What are you saying that companies like General Motors do?

Whose job? Not mine. I'm a workforce development trainer, working for many different companies as a consultant. What I have described to you is what is actually happening, I've seen it myself.

This is in response to a long quote, again with unclear negatives. Can you state clearly what you are trying to say?

 

[stevil]

I thought this wasn’t about enforcing racial or gender quotas, setting artificial targets or guaranteeing equal results for every group?
I thought it was about guaranteeing equal access and fair consideration for everyone now. True, that wasn’t the case in the past but that is no longer the case now.

Yes, its not about quotas, but these historical stats are truly staggering and are reflective of a broken system. It shows that systemic racism is well and truly alive. If barriers are broken down, and if a diverse range of nominees are considered then it is likely that this horrific picking of almost exclusively white men won't continue.

 

[MrMoe]

Thanks. It sure looks like a lot of undocumented workers are employed here. I wasn't aware of that. BTW, a later version of the link you provided says 12.7% of agricultural workers are undocumented.

I am really confused how this happens. It is illegal to hire undocumented workers. A company can be in serious legal jeopardy for doing this. My research so far says there are two common ways this still gets done: either the undocumented worker submits fraudulent documentation, or the employer treats the worker as a contractor.

If the worker is hired fraudulently as a worker, the worker needs to submit a SSN or TIN. If the number is fraudulent, payroll taxes get taken out to that fraudulent number. What happens at tax time? According to ChatGPT (not the best source, I know, but that is what I found):



So apparently the tax money gets taken out without ever being reconciled with a 1040 return. The government is getting tax money, so it is happy. The company gets good labor, so it is happy. The undocumented worker is getting paid much more than he would elsewhere, so he is happy. Everybody is happy, so nobody complains. Cheers!

If, on the other hand, the company hires the undocumented worker as a "contractor", the government apparently issues that "contractor" an ITIN for tax identification purposes and taxes get deducted. Again, the government apparently does not check if any of this is documented in legitimate business tax returns. The government gets taxes, the company get a good worker, the worker gets paid, and everybody apparently looks the other way.

Anyway, that is what I am finding. If anybody has further insight into this, please share.

That is a long sidetrack to get to the point. OK, undocumented workers are being hired. Now, the question is, what should be done about it? My suggestion is that all of this should be cleaned up. Some undocumented workers could be approved to continue working, getting paid, and filing taxes, but with very limited government benefits. Perhaps there should be some additional penalty imposed due to the fact that this person basically jumped in line, getting into the system ahead of others that waited. On the other hand, other undocumented workers could get deported.

And how do we decide who gets what treatment? I would call on two basic principles: Show mercy and be just. I personally would put more emphasis on showing mercy than being just, but both are important. How does that all work out? That is above my pay grade.

Others are far more interested in the justice aspect when dealing with undocumented workers. "Those workers jumped in line. Get them out of here." But that strategy could be immensely harmful to the government who is collecting all those taxes; to the companies that get all those good workers; and to the undocumented workers and their families that are doing much better here than they would elsewhere.

If we were to insist on extreme retribution against these workers without mercy, then that looks more to me like "Make America Hate Again" instead of "Make America Great Again".

Some should stay and some should be deported? That seems to go against your own desire for fairness.

These people broke the law by entering the country illegally. Some of them have even murdered American citizens. Mercy is a good thing, but it must have its limits. Jesus Demonstrated this perfectly in the New Testament.

Democrats seeming to show more concern for the wellbeing of illegal immigrants than their own citizens is not a good look and one of the reasons many believe Democrats lost the 2024 election.

 

[MrMoe]

Yes, its not about quotas, but these historical stats are truly staggering and are reflective of a broken system. It shows that systemic racism is well and truly alive. If barriers are broken down, and if a diverse range of nominees are considered then it is likely that this horrific picking of almost exclusively white men won't continue.

Not really staggering once to take into account the fact that the population of the United States has been vastly majority white for most of it’s existence. Around 80-85% which only started to drop in recent history. And since people have an in-group bias, which isn’t inherently racist, it was pretty much a given the president would be white. And why would the picking of almost exclusively white men be horrific? Is there something wrong with being a white man?

Even there has only been one black American president but there have been man black American politicians, and there has been great progress made. What was once the exception are now the norm.

 

[stevil]

Is there something wrong with being a white man?

That is a very weird twist of the position.
No one has said there is something wrong with being a white man.

Half the population of USA are female, why have you ever had even one female president?
The native Indians have been in the land, currently occupied by and called USA, for about 20,000 years, and still no native Indian as president.
All things being equal, you would expect over time positions to be reflective of societies make up. However in USA this just isn't the case for positions of power.

Even there has only been one black American president but there have been man black American politicians, and there has been great progress made. What was once the exception are now the norm.

USA has very slowly made some progress lately, except for the Admin under Trump which has much more leaned towards white males.
Many countries around the world have already had female heads of state. Why is USA so far behind?

 

[stevil]

These people broke the law by entering the country illegally. Some of them have even murdered American citizens.

Illegal immigrants are much more likely to be law abiding and non violent than USA citizens. But that isn't to say that every single illegal immigrant will be law abiding and non violent.

Democrats seeming to show more concern for the wellbeing of illegal immigrants than their own citizens is not a good look and one of the reasons many believe Democrats lost the 2024 election.

Well actually Democrat party seems to want affordable healthcare, want minimum wage, want living wage, want social security benefits, want maternity and paternity leave, want to support minorities against bigotry and racism, want women to have rights over their own bodies, want people to be allowed to choose medical procedures, this party seems to care a great deal for people, citizens and immigrants alike.

 

[BCP1928]

This was in response to a long paragraph:

Employers cannot legally hire someone without a valid TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number) or SSN (Social Security Number), which are used to report payroll taxes. A person here illegally typically does not have a valid SSN or TIN—or if they present one fraudulently, it can often be traced back to a legitimate holder or flagged. Without proper documentation, the only way an employer could pay an undocumented worker is "under the table," avoiding payroll taxes — which is illegal. Any sizable company engaging in widespread under-the-table employment would put itself in serious legal jeopardy, facing civil fines and potential criminal penalties.​

And it is not at all clear to me what you are saying these companies can do and whether it is legal to do what they do. For instance, can they hire people without taking out payroll taxes? Its hard to understand what you are saying when you respond with a cyrptic "not".

It looks like you have answered your own question in post #159. Yes, it is easily possible to hire illegal workers if the HR department connives with it. Leaving the fakery to the illegal individuals themselves is more risky because they may not be as adept at it.

This is in response to, "So no, I don't think companies like General Motors are hiring large numbers of undocumented immigrants and bypassing tax laws."

There are so many negatives here, it is hard to track it all. What are you saying that companies like General Motors do?

It is harder to hire illegals in a union shop because unions have oversight of the qualifications and hiring process. (One of the reasons the Right hates unions) that's why companies like GM don't do it.

This is in response to a long quote, again with unclear negatives. Can you state clearly what you are trying to say?

I added my bona fides as a statement that my position is based on actual personal experience rather than made-up stories.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[MrMoe]

That is a very weird twist of the position.
No one has said there is something wrong with being a white man.

Then why did you say “horrific picking of almost exclusively white men” why is it horrific?

Half the population of USA are female, why have you ever had even one female president?

Because the U.S. has been a majority Christian country for pretty much its entire existence and men being the leaders is a traditional Christian view. Along with some other factors like tradition.

The native Indians have been in the land, currently occupied by and called USA, for about 20,000 years, and still no native Indian as president.
All things being equal, you would expect over time positions to be reflective of societies make up. However in USA this just isn't the case for positions of power.

The native Indian population was in decline since the very first president was elected. They have made up only a very small percentage of the American population ever since.

Why do you want a female or native Indian president?
Is it because you think they’ll do a a better job then white men or because they tick certain diversity boxes?

USA has very slowly made some progress lately, except for the Admin under Trump which has much more leaned towards white males.
Many countries around the world have already had female heads of state. Why is USA so far behind?

What does it matter if it’s leaned toward white men? Their skin colour should be irrelevant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, it is easily possible to hire illegal workers if the HR department connives with it.

My question was not only whether it is possible to hire undocumented immigrants, but whether it is legal to do so. I have been researching it, and things just don't seem to add up.

First, I read it is illegal to hire or continue to employee undocumented immigrants.

Title 8 U.S.C §1324 a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an undocumented worker.​

​

Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an undocumented worker for employment, to continue to employ that worker knowing the worker is/or has become unauthorized with respect to such employment. (source)​

But then I read that a large portion of the workforce consists of tax-paying undocumented immigrants:

• 
  
• In 2023, households led by undocumented immigrants paid $89.8B in total taxes. This includes $33.9B in state and local taxes and $55.8B in federal taxes.
• 
  
• In 2023, approximately 4.9% of the U.S. workforce was undocumented. (source)

So there seems to be widespread hiring of undocumented immigrants, even though it is illegal to do so. And that seems to put companies in a lot of legal jeopardy:

​

Criminal and Civil Penalties: Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a pattern of practice of the above violations shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized worker, imprisoned for not more than six months of the entire pattern or practice or BOTH.​

​

Loss of Business: If an employer violates the above provision the employer may lose their license or ability to continue to conduct business. (source)​

​

So, it is a little odd that the practice is so widespread if the penalties for doing this are so harsh.

And yet, although it is apparently illegal to be working here, millions of undocumented people file taxes every year with an ITIN identification number.

​

Taxpayers who file their tax return with an ITIN include undocumented immigrants and their dependents as well as some people who are lawfully present in the U.S., such as certain survivors of domestic violence, Cuban and Haitian entrants, student visa-holders, and certain spouses and children of individuals with employment visas. As of December 31, 2022, the IRS had issued 26 million ITINs since the program’s inception, and there were more than 5.8 million active ITINs. (source)​

In order to get this ITIN a person needs to verify his foreign status. But the fact that he did that cannot be used as evidence that he is illegally being employed:

The IRS has strong privacy protections in place to ensure that immigrants who report their income and file their taxes are not at risk of having their information shared. Under Internal Revenue Code section 6103, the IRS is generally prohibited from disclosing taxpayer information, including to other federal agencies. (source)​

All of which is odd to me. What should be done? Many MAGA voters think Trump will throw them all out. That appears to be doubtful. From what I am reading, it should be easy (but illegal) to get all the information from the IRS, go to the place of employment, and round them up. But Trump did not do that in his first term, and so far he is making little effort to do it in his second term.

Trump will not deport them because he follows the Golden Rule, but not the version you learned in Sunday School. He follows the version that says, "He who has the gold makes the rules." And as the people that employ these people and the federal government that collect the taxes have the gold, they have no interest in mass deportation. And so, Trump does not follow mass deportation, but rather, concentrates on highly visible deportations that appear to have little concern for the merits of the case. He thus appeases the MAGA base and also satisfies his rich supporters.

What do I think should be done? I think all this should be above board. A broad swath of people see these immigrants as being good for America, including rich employers, government tax collectors, the undocumented immigrants, and bleeding-heart liberals. That's quite a coalition. So, I think we should have an above-the-table program for people to readily identify as undocumented immigrants with a clear path forward to legal status. Each case would need to be handled as in individual case, with that status not given to anyone with violent criminal activity or certain other reasons.

The only sticking point is why should people that are here illegally get priority over those who patiently waited for a chance to come here? They shouldn't. There probably should be some limits on people we allow to come here, but who gets priority, and how is that determined and enforced? The answer to that is above my pay grade. But at least I am trying.

 

[MrMoe]

Illegal immigrants are much more likely to be law abiding and non violent than USA citizens. But that isn't to say that every single illegal immigrant will be law abiding and non violent.

It’s pretty obvious why. It’s out of fear of being caught and being deported. It’s in their best interests to lay low. They are still criminals regardless.

Well actually Democrat party seems to want affordable healthcare, want minimum wage, want living wage, want social security benefits, want maternity and paternity leave, want to support minorities against bigotry and racism, want women to have rights over their own bodies, want people to be allowed to choose medical procedures, this party seems to care a great deal for people, citizens and immigrants alike.

That’s all well and good, but all that doesn’t excuse the illegal immigrant simping.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

They are still criminals regardless.

And so are people who speed and run red lights.

 

[BCP1928]

My question was not only whether it is possible to hire undocumented immigrants, but whether it is legal to do so. I have been researching it, and things just don't seem to add up.

First, I read it is illegal to hire or continue to employee undocumented immigrants.

Title 8 U.S.C §1324 a(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful for any person or entity to hire, recruit, or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an undocumented worker.​

​

Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an undocumented worker for employment, to continue to employ that worker knowing the worker is/or has become unauthorized with respect to such employment. (source)​

But then I read that a large portion of the workforce consists of tax-paying undocumented immigrants:

• 
  
• In 2023, households led by undocumented immigrants paid $89.8B in total taxes. This includes $33.9B in state and local taxes and $55.8B in federal taxes.
• 
  
• In 2023, approximately 4.9% of the U.S. workforce was undocumented. (source)

So there seems to be widespread hiring of undocumented immigrants, even though it is illegal to do so. And that seems to put companies in a lot of legal jeopardy:

​

Criminal and Civil Penalties: Subsection 1324a(f) provides that any person or entity that engages in a pattern of practice of the above violations shall be fined not more than $3000 for each unauthorized worker, imprisoned for not more than six months of the entire pattern or practice or BOTH.​

​

Loss of Business: If an employer violates the above provision the employer may lose their license or ability to continue to conduct business. (source)​

​

So, it is a little odd that the practice is so widespread if the penalties for doing this are so harsh.

And yet, although it is apparently illegal to be working here, millions of undocumented people file taxes every year with an ITIN identification number.

​

Taxpayers who file their tax return with an ITIN include undocumented immigrants and their dependents as well as some people who are lawfully present in the U.S., such as certain survivors of domestic violence, Cuban and Haitian entrants, student visa-holders, and certain spouses and children of individuals with employment visas. As of December 31, 2022, the IRS had issued 26 million ITINs since the program’s inception, and there were more than 5.8 million active ITINs. (source)​

In order to get this ITIN a person needs to verify his foreign status. But the fact that he did that cannot be used as evidence that he is illegally being employed:

The IRS has strong privacy protections in place to ensure that immigrants who report their income and file their taxes are not at risk of having their information shared. Under Internal Revenue Code section 6103, the IRS is generally prohibited from disclosing taxpayer information, including to other federal agencies. (source)​

All of which is odd to me. What should be done? Many MAGA voters think Trump will throw them all out. That appears to be doubtful. From what I am reading, it should be easy (but illegal) to get all the information from the IRS, go to the place of employment, and round them up. But Trump did not do that in his first term, and so far he is making little effort to do it in his second term.

Trump will not deport them because he follows the Golden Rule, but not the version you learned in Sunday School. He follows the version that says, "He who has the gold makes the rules." And as the people that employ these people and the federal government that collect the taxes have the gold, they have no interest in mass deportation. And so, Trump does not follow mass deportation, but rather, concentrates on highly visible deportations that appear to have little concern for the merits of the case. He thus appeases the MAGA base and also satisfies his rich supporters.

What do I think should be done? I think all this should be above board. A broad swath of people see these immigrants as being good for America, including rich employers, government tax collectors, the undocumented immigrants, and bleeding-heart liberals. That's quite a coalition. So, I think we should have an above-the-table program for people to readily identify as undocumented immigrants with a clear path forward to legal status. Each case would need to be handled as in individual case, with that status not given to anyone with violent criminal activity or certain other reasons.

The only sticking point is why should people that are here illegally get priority over those who patiently waited for a chance to come here? They shouldn't. There probably should be some limits on people we allow to come here, but who gets priority, and how is that determined and enforced? The answer to that is above my pay grade. But at least I am trying.

Now I think you will understand why the emphasis has been on the "caravans" that is, asylum seekers. Asylum seekers, though they may have entered the country illegally are allowed to legally remain until their asylum claims are heard. Because they are here legally they can work here legally and are covered by US wage and labor laws. And because they are here legally they can complain of violations, which illegal workers cannot, for fear of being deported. Asylum seekers may be aliens but their wages can't be shorted, they can't be employed in dangerous or unsafe workplaces and their children can't be put to work in the factory either--except in places like Alabama.
The same thing can be said for the Haitian refugees. They have been branded by the administration as "illegal aliens" as well. So, they have to go home even though they were brought here legally and Haiti is in an even worse mess than when they fled. We have some here in our town, they mostly work at the packing plant. They haven't eaten my cat yet.

 

[doubtingmerle]

They are still criminals regardless.

From what I am reading, hiring undocumented workers is a serious crime. The punishment can include 6 months in jail or shutting down the business. And yet 4.9% of the workforce is undocumented. Lots of companies are employing undocumented workers. Do you want all those employers to go to jail, and their companies to be shut down?

Don't worry, the government is not going to shut down General Motors and put the CEO in jail for 6 months if GM is guilty of this. The benefits of all these undocumented workers in America is so great, the government looks the other way.

Is this anger at millions of undocumented workers really an economic issue? Then why is there widespread approval within business and government for these undocumented workers being here?

Could it be that all this talk of mass deportation of undocumented workers is really based on a resentment or even a hatred for the undocumented, rather than a cold calculation of the financial benefits to the economy if we do a mass deportation?

 

[BCP1928]

From what I am reading, hiring undocumented workers is a serious crime. The punishment can include 6 months in jail or shutting down the business. And yet 4.9% of the workforce is undocumented. Lots of companies are employing undocumented workers. Do you want all those employers to go to jail, and their companies to be shut down?

Don't worry, the government is not going to shut down General Motors and put the CEO in jail for 6 months if GM is guilty of this. The benefits of all these undocumented workers in America is so great, the government looks the other way.

Is this anger at millions of undocumented workers really an economic issue? Then why is there widespread approval within business and government for these undocumented workers being here?

Because they can be more easily exploited. They can't complain or they will be deported.

Could it be that all this talk of mass deportation of undocumented workers is really based on a resentment or even a hatred for the undocumented, rather than a cold calculation of the financial benefits to the economy if we do a mass deportation?

It will be a mass deportation of aliens who up until now were considered legal. Legal aliens can demand legal pay and legal working conditions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It will be a mass deportation of aliens.

That wasn't the question. I was not asking who you wanted deported but why you wanted them deported.

Once again: Could it be that all this talk of mass deportation of undocumented workers is really based on a resentment or even a hatred for the undocumented, rather than a cold calculation of the financial benefits to the economy if we do a mass deportation?

 

[BCP1928]

That wasn't the question. I was not asking who you wanted deported but why you wanted them deported.

Why do you suppose I want anybody deported. I thought we were talking about why Republicans wanted them deported,

Once again: Could it be that all this talk of mass deportation of undocumented workers is really based on a resentment or even a hatred for the undocumented, rather than a cold calculation of the financial benefits to the economy if we do a mass deportation?

Republicans are stirring up and exploiting resentment and hatred for the undocumented to justify the expulsion of legal aliens while leaving the illegal alien workers largely undisturbed. That is the "cold calculation."

 

[doubtingmerle]

Now I think you will understand why the emphasis has been on the "caravans" that is, asylum seekers. Asylum seekers, though they may have entered the country illegally are allowed to legally remain until their asylum claims are heard. Because they are here legally they can work here legally and are covered by US wage and labor laws.

Actually, the post you responded to was talking about undocumented immigrants, who are ineligible to be hired in America. You switch the subject to asylum seekers, who are eligible to be legally hired in America. Same church, different pew.

When I quoted a source that said 4.9% of workers in America are undocumented immigrants, that apparently did not include asylum seekers. It's hard to find anybody who clarifies all this, so I turned to ChatGPT. I know that is not the ideal reference source, but they give a table that appears to be valuable. So, for what it is worth, here is the ChatGPT table:

Major Mutually Exclusive Groups of Non-Citizens in the U.S. Workforce​

​

Group​	Description​	Work Authorization?​	Estimated % of U.S. Workforce​
Undocumented Immigrants​	Individuals residing without legal authorization.​	❌ No​	~4.8%​
Asylum Seekers​	Individuals applying for protection; lawful presence pending decision.​	❓ Yes, after obtaining an EAD (work permit)​	~1.0%​
Green Card Holders​	Lawful permanent residents with full rights to live and work.​	✅ Yes​	~8.0%​
Temporary Visa Holders​	Visitors on temporary visas (e.g., H-1B workers, F-1 students).​	❓ Some can work (depends on visa type)​	~2.0%​
Refugees​	Individuals granted refugee status abroad before entering the U.S.​	✅ Yes​	~0.5%​
DACA Recipients​	Young undocumented immigrants granted temporary deferred action and work rights.​	✅ Yes (temporary protection)​	~0.3%​
TPS Holders​	Nationals from disaster-affected countries granted temporary stay.​	✅ Yes​	~0.1%​
Parolees​	Temporarily allowed into U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons.​	❓ Sometimes (depends on parole terms)​	~0.2%​

​

And they reference these sources:

Pew Research Center – Key facts about U.S. immigrants​

USCIS – Immigration Categories​

Migration Policy Institute – Immigration in the United States​

American Immigration Council – Immigrant Contributions to the U.S. Economy​

​

So, groups are mutually exclusive and need to be accounted for differently. It's quite complex. And it would be very difficult to determine the best policy for dealing with each group. I don't know the answer, but I do recommend that each be dealt with using mercy and justice, with an emphasis on mercy. Where that ends up, I don't know exactly.

If a person recommends some of these groups should be dealt with harshly because they think the letter of the law says so, I would ask, "Do you want the same rule to apply to you if you do not follow the letter of the law when driving above the speed limit?" Sometimes a harsh application of the letter of the law is not the ideal solution.

And if a person recommends these groups should be dealt with harshly because that would help their economic situation, please justify your answer, and prove that the benefit that would come to citizens justifies the immense pain that would come to non-citizens with your policy.

And if a person recommends these groups should be dealt with harshly because he hates these non-citizens, well, nobody admits that, but I wander if that is often the reason.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why do you suppose I want anybody deported. I thought we were talking about why Republicans wanted them deported,

Sorry, I may have misunderstood your intentions when I read your writings.

 

[doubtingmerle]

all that doesn’t excuse the illegal immigrant simping.

And what is it that justifies the suggested harsh treatment of undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and others? The mass deportation recommended by many is very harsh.

If the justification is to follow the letter of the law, why is that better than showing mercy?

If the justification is economic well-being of citizens, where is your evidence?

 

[BCP1928]

Actually, the post you responded to was talking about undocumented immigrants, who are ineligible to be hired in America. You switch the subject to asylum seekers, who are eligible to be legally hired in America. Same church, different pew.

When I quoted a source that said 4.9% of workers in America are undocumented immigrants, that apparently did not include asylum seekers. It's hard to find anybody who clarifies all this, so I turned to ChatGPT. I know that is not the ideal reference source, but they give a table that appears to be valuable. So, for what it is worth, here is the ChatGPT table:

Major Mutually Exclusive Groups of Non-Citizens in the U.S. Workforce​

​

Group​	Description​	Work Authorization?​	Estimated % of U.S. Workforce​
Undocumented Immigrants​	Individuals residing without legal authorization.​	❌ No​	~4.8%​
Asylum Seekers​	Individuals applying for protection; lawful presence pending decision.​	❓ Yes, after obtaining an EAD (work permit)​	~1.0%​
Green Card Holders​	Lawful permanent residents with full rights to live and work.​	✅ Yes​	~8.0%​
Temporary Visa Holders​	Visitors on temporary visas (e.g., H-1B workers, F-1 students).​	❓ Some can work (depends on visa type)​	~2.0%​
Refugees​	Individuals granted refugee status abroad before entering the U.S.​	✅ Yes​	~0.5%​
DACA Recipients​	Young undocumented immigrants granted temporary deferred action and work rights.​	✅ Yes (temporary protection)​	~0.3%​
TPS Holders​	Nationals from disaster-affected countries granted temporary stay.​	✅ Yes​	~0.1%​
Parolees​	Temporarily allowed into U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons.​	❓ Sometimes (depends on parole terms)​	~0.2%​

​

And they reference these sources:

Pew Research Center – Key facts about U.S. immigrants​

USCIS – Immigration Categories​

Migration Policy Institute – Immigration in the United States​

American Immigration Council – Immigrant Contributions to the U.S. Economy​

​

So, groups are mutually exclusive and need to be accounted for differently. It's quite complex. And it would be very difficult to determine the best policy for dealing with each group. I don't know the answer, but I do recommend that each be dealt with using mercy and justice, with an emphasis on mercy. Where that ends up, I don't know exactly.

If a person recommends some of these groups should be dealt with harshly because they think the letter of the law says so, I would ask, "Do you want the same rule to apply to you if you do not follow the letter of the law when driving above the speed limit?" Sometimes a harsh application of the letter of the law is not the ideal solution.

The last person I heard make that recommendation was the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC who was condemned by the President for it in crude terms and openly denounced in this forum as a "blasphemous pervert."

And if a person recommends these groups should be dealt with harshly because that would help their economic situation, please justify your answer, and prove that the benefit that would come to citizens justifies the immense pain that would come to non-citizens with your policy.

That's not my policy and I have no wish to defend it.

And if a person recommends these groups should be dealt with harshly because he hates these non-citizens, well, nobody admits that, but I wander if that is often the reason.

No wondering required. The Christian Right is quite open about it.